Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google AI

Google Cancels AI Ethics Board In Response To Outcry (vox.com) 220

After facing criticism for including two controversial members in its AI ethics board, Google told Vox that it's pulling the plug on the board altogether. "The inclusion of drone company CEO Dyan Gibbens reopened old divisions in the company over the use of the company's AI for military applications," reports Vox. But it's Heritage Foundation president Kay Coles James who proved most controversial due to her company's hard line stance on immigration and LGBTQ rights. Thousands of Google employees signed a petition earlier this week calling for her removal. From the report: The board survived for barely more than one week. Founded to guide "responsible development of AI" at Google, it would have had eight members and met four times over the course of 2019 to consider concerns about Google's AI program. Those concerns include how AI can enable authoritarian states, how AI algorithms produce disparate outcomes, whether to work on military applications of AI, and more. But it ran into problems from the start.

Board member Alessandro Acquisti resigned. Another member, Joanna Bryson, defending her decision not to resign, claimed of James, "Believe it or not, I know worse about one of the other people." Other board members found themselves swamped with demands that they justify their decision to remain on the board. The panel was supposed to add outside perspectives to ongoing AI ethics work by Google engineers, all of which will continue. Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders.
Here is Google's statement on the matter: "It's become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can't function as we wanted. So we're ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We'll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Cancels AI Ethics Board In Response To Outcry

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @12:04AM (#58387972)

    Yet another large group folds just because some tiny mob of people are angry.

    People should really start taking up the examples of Virginian Democrats and stand fast - if Democrats can hold onto power after raping women and wearing a Klan hood, then it sure seems like Google should be able to have a panel with whoever the hell they like and ignore the haters.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @01:06AM (#58388134)

      Yet another large group folds just because some tiny mob of people are angry.

      Every time they cave in, they encourage even more mobs, and more manufactured outrage. Decision making becomes ever more dysfunctional, and fixing problems ever more difficult. For an example of what this can lead to, look at France.

      • by Hentes ( 2461350 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @01:43AM (#58388236)

        I suspect in this case Google is quite happy to have an excuse not to have an ethics board.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        On the other hand, perhaps they just decided hat the "mob" was right and they had made a bad decision, and fixed it.

        Carrying on with your plan even after it becomes obvious that it's fundamentally flawed is silly. Not listening to people because they disagree with you or because you already made a decision is also pretty dumb, e.g. see Teresa May.

        • An angry mob of several thousand people (at a company that employs about 100k) shut down AI Ethics meeting.
          But let's pretend "it's because 'mob was right'", or in other words #nothinghappened shall we?

        • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @08:52AM (#58389396)

          On the other hand, perhaps they just decided hat the "mob" was right and they had made a bad decision, and fixed it.

          Carrying on with your plan even after it becomes obvious that it's fundamentally flawed is silly. Not listening to people because they disagree with you or because you already made a decision is also pretty dumb, e.g. see Teresa May.

          It is pretty obvious that the employees have demanded that there is one opinion only, and that if you do not put people of that far left wing opinion, you shall not pass muster.

          But that isn't a committee. There isn't much point of having a committee at all if all must march in lockstep. Just get one person who has the opinion that is allowed, and have them write a manifesto.

          One of the problems with both the far right and far left is their insistence on purity of politics. But collective pants-shitting because someone from the heritage foundation is on the panel, and especially from a drone mfgr, is simply telling the world that anyone that the mob will accept and any conclusions or recommendations must be decided before any meetings.

          Which of course, brings me back to the point that no committee is needed. Just get a far left person to write something condemning whatever they feel needs condemned, name a few names that they want fired from their jobs, and tidy up that little corner of the world. Then they can pat themselves on the back, and move on to the next thing they want to cry about.

          p.s. I'm just hoping that #metoo doesn't find out about how Annie Smith and I kissed on the playground when we were in third grade. It was her idea, but I hear regret sexual assault is promoted these days. #keepingalowprofile

    • Only Virginians care about Virginian Democrats. The whole world cares what Google does though.
    • He got power way after those incidents and his handlers knew about it long ago.

      Is he a racist bag of dicks? Maybe. Some people change, some don't. Politicians tend to have little remorse.

      But there is a clear cause and effect from when he started talking publicly about "post-birth abortions" happening to harvest tissue from infants to when they released this file to take him out.

      Very interesting that he survived it - now he has more power and his handlers have far less.

    • This reversal is a normal result. Any group formed to explicitly provide an advisory function for a company needs to have oversight from all of its stakeholders. This includes the laborers, the division directors, the bond holders, and the stock holders or at least the preferred stock holders. A group dysfunctional at initiation is inept and incompetent from the start.

      That Google also has a leadership role in the industry means that its decision will shape its future development; what they invest in, what
  • And some wonder (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vinegar Joe ( 998110 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @12:07AM (#58387982)

    why Google, etc might want to relocate to China or other countries........

    • We don't need that from you :| Peanut gallery...
    • And some wonder why Google, etc might want to relocate to China or other countries...

      Google hasn't even considered such a move because it would be downright idiotic for them.

      Have you seen the clashes they having with the EU? Now imagine if the EU could tell them "tough shit" and they just had to comply. Not good for them.
      Have you even read about the problems in China? It wouldn't be any good to move your business to China if the government will just steal your IP and give it to a "real" Chinese company.

      If you think Google is thinking about moving then you are about as informed as a Fox N

      • Google may be interested in moving to China, but they seem perfectly happy to working on censorship and population control tools for China but not reconnaissance software for the US. That is quite the inconsistency, claims of a moral stand debunked.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Hypothetically, if Google did decide to relocate to China and somehow wasn't instantly wiped out by a stock price crash and key staff quitting, what you you suggest was the best course of action?

      Restrict free speech so as not to offend them or make them feel uncomfortable due to criticism?

      Give in to their demands just to keep them in the US?

      Start a rival service to fill the vacuum?

    • No LGBTQ rights in China, tho.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Do No Evil (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Seems the best approach is to add those 3 words back as the corporate mantra.

    Language alone won't effect change, so the culture must also change. Yet many inside would like the mantra returned.

  • Skynet's efforts at character assassination were once again successful.
    Everything is going according to plan.

  • wtf (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ChoGGi ( 522069 ) <slashdot@NOSpaM.choggi.org> on Friday April 05, 2019 @04:02AM (#58388546) Homepage

    Wouldn't you want differing views on an ethics board? I guess as long as they're not different from yours.

  • Google needs to develop a new AI which will make management decisions for Google based on "lowest social outrage algorithm". They should buy data from Facebook to train the AI on social outrage. Given their history over the past couple of years, this could be a very high ROI internal project.

    • Any smart AI would reply "A strange game, this social outrage thing. The only winning move is not to play."

  • if only (Score:4, Funny)

    by sad_ ( 7868 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @05:37AM (#58388710) Homepage

    if only they had assembled the board using some kind of unbiased, refined AI that would figure out the correct mix of different people everybody could agree on.

    • by Pyramid ( 57001 )

      Facebook already does this every day. It makes sure people only see appealing ideas and opinions or things to get outraged about to keep eyeballs on the platform.

  • by cjonslashdot ( 904508 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @06:21AM (#58388806)
    The petitioners wanted Google to create a "bubble" that only had a certain pre-ordained point of view.
  • As is typical for Google, they didn't quite go through with it but only did one part of it.

    For now, they cancel AI ethics.

  • CEOs? That's crazy! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Johnberg ( 1642323 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @07:04AM (#58388960)
    I work in the industry AND have strong positive moral ethics. They didn't ask me to serve on the board. Not sure why they picked a bunch of CEOs ... that's a group of people that are more likely to be sociopaths than anybody!
  • by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Friday April 05, 2019 @07:11AM (#58388982)
    Oh boo-hoo, someone on the board has entirely unrelated political opinions some employees don't share, better get rid of it. And god forbid that someone directly involved in the stickiest aspect of AI be on the board, I'm sure it's better to just let them figure out the ethics on their own, without any non-military influence.

    Short sighted fools. That's what Google and those "thousands of employees" are. Looks like they want a politically pure board that, because it's based on politics, is utterly incapable of doing its job.

    Politics over all, and in place of all. Great idea, worked awesome for the USSR.

  • Another instance of people totally unwilling to openly listen to other ideas. Political correctness is creating the most intolerant generation of people.

  • How dare they have a variety of viewpoints represented on an ethics board? Of course the SJWs got their panties in a twist, I mean, their viewpoints are the only ones that count. Everything else must be suppressed.

    What is genuinely sad is that Google gave in on this. Since the SJWs got their way this time, they know their strategy works, and they'll whine all the louder next time.

    • Of course, they'll always get their way. They've mastered the art of bleating with hashtags; the corporate world is petrified of the bad press they can generate.
      What better way to affect social change, without any ideas of your own and; all from the comfort of your local Starbucks?

      Besides, what good is a panel like this if you can't get it to rubberstamp whatever you tell them to? I bet you think arbitration clauses in contracts are designed to actually be fair to the consumer as well? :)

  • We just had a bunch of men making decisions about rights for women that everyone made an outcry about.

    And yet now we have proposals for ALL HUMAN board to make decisions about the rights of AIs.

    Rights for every color except silver and grey apparently.

  • The ethics board for AI folds because of unethical behavior of the non-artificial intelligent types.

    It seems that some at Google think that having an opinion different than their group-think is reason enough to try and silent them.
    No tolerance for diversity of thought. No tolerance for different opinions. Hate them because they are different. That is their moral compass?

    Is that what we want to teach our AI?
  • Is that really what this is about? That if someone should have a difference of opinion on some hot button topic, they are to be dismissed?

    It is obvious that not everyone has the capacity to participate in something like this. But I doubt they would have selected anyone for the board unless they thought they had something to contribute. I mean, they didn't just pick names out of a hat. Did they?

    Besides, isn't it supposed to be beneficial to have a diversity of opinions and perspectives? I have always be

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...