Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Google Businesses Government United States Politics

Google Employees Are Lining Up To Trash Google's AI Ethics Council (technologyreview.com) 155

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: Almost a thousand Google staff, academic researchers, and other tech industry figures have signed a letter protesting the makeup of an independent council that Google created to guide the ethics of its AI projects. The search giant announced the creation of the council last week at EmTech Digital, MIT Technology Review's event in San Francisco. Known as the Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC), it has eight members including economists, philosophers, policymakers, and technologists with expertise in issues like algorithmic bias. It is meant to hold four meetings a year, starting this month, and write reports designed to provide feedback on projects at the company that use artificial intelligence.

But two of those members proved controversial. One, Dyan Gibbens, is CEO of Trumbull, a company that develops autonomous systems for the defense industry -- a contentious choice given that thousands of Google employees protested the company's decision to supply the US Air Force with AI for drone imaging. The greatest outrage, though, has come over the inclusion of Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that opposes regulating carbon emissions, takes a hard line on immigration, and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights. The creation of ATEAC -- and the inclusion of Gibbens and James -- may in fact have been designed to appease Google's right-wing critics. At roughly the same time the council was announced, Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, was meeting with President Donald Trump. Trump later tweeted: "He stated strongly that he is totally committed to the U.S. Military, not the Chinese Military. [We] also discussed political fairness and various things that Google can do for our Country. Meeting ended very well!"
"Not only are James' views counter to Google's stated values," the letter states, "but they are directly counter to the project of ensuring that the development and application of AI prioritizes justice over profit. Such a project should instead place representatives from vulnerable communities at the center of decision-making."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Employees Are Lining Up To Trash Google's AI Ethics Council

Comments Filter:
  • So misleading (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @03:54PM (#58374174)

    "and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights"

    No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people. They shouldn't get special treatment or special laws. That's not how it works, we're all to be treated equally under the law.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Does this person also oppose special treatment for heterosexual people? (e.g. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman.)

      • Re:So misleading (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @05:09PM (#58374692)

        Hopefully so, that would be a moderate position. Ideally there would be no left or right extremes represented but only moderates. TFS seems to advocate for all one extreme, Google seems to have gone for a blend of left and left center.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          In other words, only middle-of-the road, bland and inoffensive opinions allows. If your opinion isn't on the list of moderate positions, it's banned.

          The situation is free speech working as intended. The Heritage Foundation uses their free speech to express their opinion. Others use their free speech to criticise the Heritage Foundation and Google. Google can now choose to take notice or not, to accept their criticism or not and to act or not.

    • "and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights"

      No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people. They shouldn't get special treatment or special laws. That's not how it works, we're all to be treated equally under the law.

      Thank you for that clarification/correction.

      Regardless of anyone's views on the topic at hand, eradicating bullshit and devaluing clickbait in mass media should remain a priority of any educated society who wishes to remain respected and informed.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Still better that ethicsvertising. Where bullshit corporations pretend to have ethics by creating ethics councils, that in the spirit of George Orwell and 1984 style are entirely stacked with people with no ethics.

        I mean though Google so fucking cheap on the ethicsvertising, I mean only four meetings a year, and only eight people. Oh how the greater than though moralists have fallen, all that bullshit feels good research into public benefit projects, that never seems to achieve anything beyond advertising.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people.

      Here's what I don't understand about your stance: you want to deny rights to gay people (you're advocating FOR the heritage foundation here), by prventing them from marrying and getting the same legal protections and rights as straight people.

      But yet you swear blind that that isn't anything against gay people.

      You clearly think gay people deerve fewer rights because you are indirecly (but not very indirectly) advocating to use the force of law to deny those

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
        There are civil union contracts available out there for such folks....why not use them, same benefit, right?

        To me, "marriage" is a religious thing...and the govt. really doesn't need to be in that business. They should leave the marriage part to churches....and for legal contracts, everyone should use civil contracts....

        Seems like that should clear it up....

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          To me, "marriage" is a religious thing...and the govt. really doesn't need to be in that business.

          Yes, let's ignore how reality is right now and aim for lofty goals while conveniently continuing to deny rights to eople in the mean time.

          If the government recognises marriages (it does) then it should recognise them for gay coules as well.

          • Well, in the posts I was replying to....the complaint was that gays didn't get the legal rights heteros do in marriage....and a civil union contract fulfills that, doesn't it?

            The post I was answering alluded to THAT being the important thing in all this....eh?

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Have you heard of "separate but equal"? You should read up on that.
          And as far as marriage being a religious thing, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Marriage historically has always been about politics (especially for the upper classes) and economics (for basically everyone). The reason religion got involved is just because they wielded considerable political power in the past. Marriage is basically a legal contract. It's about regulating possession and inheritance. In many countries in Europe the

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people.

      He opposes laws that stop people making other laws which discriminate against LGBTQ people, e.g. banning same sex marriage. That's not "special laws for LGBTQ people", that's banning special laws for non-LGBTQ people.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @03:54PM (#58374176)

    Looking at the furor over simply having someone with a slightly different point of view be able to speak and take part in decision making, it appears that humans are absolutely garbage at ethics determinations and probably we should just let the AI do whatever, it'll probably end up better than us at reasonable behavior.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's not a "slightly different point of view", it's someone who is opposed to treating certain groups as human beings and who supports denying their basic rights.

      If someone defining the ethics of your organization considered you and your relationship with your partner to be immoral and believes it should be illegal, it would be somewhat unreasonable to expect you to be fine with that.

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        It's not a "slightly different point of view", it's someone who is opposed to treating certain groups as human beings and who supports denying their basic rights.

        Yes, but we're talking about someone espousing equal treatment for all, not the man hating Google employees.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Always about man hating with you.

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            I find that a scurrilous claim and deny it with evidence: I post on many topics and actually like many men.

            But as attacking women for being women is already seen as unacceptable I am merely seeking equality for people that aren't women.

            Isn't that diverse and forward thinking of me. You should be proud.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I don't meant you hate men, I mean you bring up man-hating all the time.

              I mean what is the man-hating angle here? Some Google employees are upset because an org that campaigns against LGBTQ rights is part of the ethics board. Why did you even bring it up again?

              • by Cederic ( 9623 )

                I intentionally misinterpreted your comment and inverted it, thus creating a comical paradox that needed the context of why it would apply when reversed.

                It's called humour. You might want to research it.

                • by Anonymous Coward
                  It wasn't funny. Sorry. The good news though is that this means it'll be part of Dennis Miller's new routine, so at least you'll get royalties.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    You'll be branded as a racist and be fired and nothing will change.

  • by nwaack ( 3482871 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @03:56PM (#58374190)

    "How DARE they include people who aren't politically aligned to the far left! They'll run amok with their wrong think, mansplaining and **insert -phobic word of the week here.** Dissenting views will not be tolerated in our AI discussions!!!"

    My god, the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If you dispute cultural marxism at this point, your head is in your sand. You have picked up on exactly what identity politics is all about: only giving basic human rights to leftists and no one else. Social credit score is the same idea, but less underhanded.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I think honesty, compassion and empathy in our leaders should be valued more than profits. Convincing through cooperation, not intimidation, is far too rare.

    • You forgot to shoehorn the word 'toxic' in there somewhere.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:00PM (#58374224)

    The ethics of only hearing approved viewpoints and opinions.

    How very fascistic of Goolag.

    • Tolerance for me, but not for thee

      Looks like another 12 year old has discovered the "paradox of tolerance".

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This is an attack on free speech. If you can't criticise what other people are saying or doing, you don't have free speech.

        • The loudest defenders of free speech are its worst defenders by far. It seems like they want it for only inconsequential edge-lording. Anything that might matter they complain about.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I always wonder how on earth these committees are formed. Seems like every time a committee is appointed for a task like this, there is always a few conflicts-of-interest in the pool. So, how can we appoint people and screen out serious conflicts in a timely manner? When we have a committee like this, we need people that are highly educated in their respective fields, and preferably with a background or at least passing familiarity with the technical concepts involved. The pool is probably a lot smaller

    • >So, how can we appoint people and screen out serious conflicts in a timely manner?

      More importantly, why would we want to? Those serious conflicts of interest are what's necessary to avoid having your symbolic gesture become an embarrassment. Without them your ethics board might start suggesting courses of action that would interfere with profits, and then you'd be in the position of having to either lose money or obviously ignore your own ethics board.

      Much better for everyone (making the decisions) i

  • by Anonymous Coward

    *** BREAKING NEWS ***

    Sources confirmed earlier this century Google is full of intolerant tyrannical cry babies. Stay tuned for our special report at 11.

  • by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:03PM (#58374260)

    Color me surprised. It's illegal to discriminate against people based on their political views in California so these signatories, if holding a managerial position could be putting the company at great risk of a lawsuit.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:35PM (#58374472)

      It's illegal to discriminate against people based on their political views in California

      Ideological discrimination only applies to hiring and employment. Appointment to an advisory panel is neither.

      Furthermore, political views are only protected if they are about public policy. So views on discretionary corporate behavior are unlikely to be protected by California law.

      • I never thought I would see people on Slashdot argue in favor of discrimination, but here it is.
        • I never thought I would see people on Slashdot argue in favor of discrimination, but here it is.

          I did not argue for (or against) anything.

  • Google is left, but not as left as this person is right.
    • Actual quotes from Kay Coles James Twitter feed [twitter.com] (did you know she was a female? I did not):

      "We are committed to solutions that give Americans access to higher-quality health care. Letâ(TM)s lower premiums, increase choice, and protect people with pre-existing conditions."

      "Women deserve opportunities and recognition for their valuable contributions, not rigid pay scales, inflexible jobs, & barriers to getting their foot in the door"

      "Congress should pursue real reforms that put people in charge of t

      • Well the problem is the right makes statements like that then advocates policies that directly contravene them. Health Care is a prime example, you're living in a fantasy world if you think "protect the vulnerable" in any way shape or form will involve providing any decent level of care, just look at every proposal thus far. Their choice and lower premiums rhetoric always means policies that cover virtually nothing, so the poor remain without access to preventative care. They don't give one flying fuck abou
      • Actual quotes from Kay Coles James Twitter feed (did you know she was a female? I did not):

        So? My twitter feed could contain all sorts of claims that SuperKendall fucks goats. Doesn't make it true though. She's president of the anti-gay, anti-science heritage foundation.

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          What's anti-gay and anti-science about the Heritage Foundation?

          I mean, I just found something on their website condemning proposed Equality Act legislation (at https://www.heritage.org/gende... [heritage.org] ) but it at no point demonises or targets people based on their sexuality or gender (unless you include suggesting that men would intentionally abuse the law the prey on women).

          They do disagree with the legislation but do so by raising a large number of concerns about its implications. Those concerns are stated objec

          • What's anti-gay and anti-science about the Heritage Foundation?

            seriously?

            Well here:s a bunch of mealy-mouthed JAQing off about global warming:

            https://www.heritage.org/envir... [heritage.org]

            they're too cowardly to actually state their position insted they merely approach it from every angle but casting doubt, raising issues, obscuring the point and so on. Climate change might be up for debate but not by a bunch of jaqoffs who have an axe to grind.

            but it at no point demonises or targets people based on their sexuality or

  • "Justice" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:30PM (#58374430) Journal

    By 2019, the Humans of Earth had almost entirely deformed the meaning of the word 'justice', wielding it like a weapon against anyone that disagreed with them, generally intending some measure of revenge (and often to insist on financial compensation). Often, this wasn't even personal revenge but revenge-by-proxy, insisting that others' suffering needed amelioration.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I hate Illinois revenge-by-proxy nazis.

  • of working for an ad company that really wants to support Communist China?
    Preventing ad blocking in a browser.
    Ensuing a search engine for Communist China won't find words and terms.
    • of working for an ad company that really wants to support Communist China? .

      That got a bit of a ripple among the Googlerati. Not much more than that.

      But providing any services at all to <gasp, horrors, fetch the smelling salts!!!> the United States Military ... The *MILITARY*! of the *gasp* *UNITED STATES*...

      That is a hideous outrage too awful to be borne.

      Where do they find these peop... Oh. Yeah. The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of California.

    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      You forgot the whole tracking entire populations in order to maliciously target them with propaganda aimed at changing their behaviours.

  • If you don't like what the company you work for do, just leave. This is what I did with my last employer (dubious ethics). I'm not the only one who did it. Many seniors and intermediate++ left the company. Now they only have a bunch of juniors and unmotivated employees and they have many problems with projects delivery (late, buggy, ...). Since then, I'm a freelancer and I'll never go back.

  • by Wizardess ( 888790 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:31AM (#58376386)

    Perhaps we can see a sticking point on the definitions of the words involved, such as "justice". If there was true justice in the world Hillary would be behind bars, GWB would be behind bars, Obama would be behind bars, and in point of fact most politicians in the US would suddenly find themselves incarcerated, too. (And there might not be a living lawyer to be found anywhere despite some of them being fine people. "Justice" warriors would end 'em all and let whatever sort them out.)
    {^_^}

  • You DO know that Google is a for-profit corporation and not a student's YouTube channel, right?

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Working...