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."
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."
So misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
"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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
The other extreme, obviously.
Re:So misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Care to explain why its ridiculous while two chicks marrying each other is not?
I'm not the original AC, but this is easy enough to answer that I'll step in.
Marriage is a legal agreement, and it requires legal consent. Legal consent generally requires an adult of sound mind.
Thus, an equitable society will allow marriage between a man and a woman, two women, or two men. Marriage of children, animals, and objects is not sensible because none of them can provide legal consent.
So, if you're looking for a clear line---here it is. On the other hand, if you're just trying to justify your bigotry... don't bother. No justification will make it less repulsive.
Re: (Score:2)
No-one who regards the human species as a form of animal life says that animals can't consent. On the other hand, barely anyone discusses consent at all in a functional sense outside the enabling context of a literate culture with a long, written history.
Contractual obligations as we now understand them are joined at the hip with the written record (this being the preferred embodiment for anyone organized enough to do it the right way).
The technology of modern consent is maste
Re: (Score:2)
Animals cannot consent legally, nor can children. The ability to understand a contract or an agreement and its consequences is required for consent. If you want an opinion with greater detail, go bother a lawyer.
If any of the above changes, feel free to reopen the marriage debate.
who 'consent' in the generic sense of the word
Which is why I said legal consent. So what happens when your entire post wants to confuse the definition of consent? It becomes an irrelevant, rambling nothingburger.
a 17 year old boy... his 25 year old teacher
May or may not be statutory rape depending on the state. It's not
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even after I fixed your abuse of tense, no ballet question in all of recorded history has ever been quite this straightforward.
And this one less so than most, because the opposition side deliberately frames marriage as a question about God's will, and not as an administrative qu
Re: (Score:2)
The government recognizes and enforces the agreement, but it is not a party to it.
As far as this, however:
When the people in the US have been asked at the ballot if they wish to be a party to homosexual marriages, they almost always say no, they do not.
That is not true, and it has been untrue for years. I believe the majority support for gay marriage first occurred around 2013. It's been steadily growing for decades. If you truly believe the majority opinion should determine the public policy, then you should accept this particular policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Dogs can't enter into contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The post I was answering alluded to THAT being the important thing in all this....eh?
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Why even have a council at all.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Always about man hating with you.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Great (Score:1)
You'll be branded as a racist and be fired and nothing will change.
So, only lefties then? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
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.
Re: So, only lefties then? (Score:1)
I think honesty, compassion and empathy in our leaders should be valued more than profits. Convincing through cooperation, not intimidation, is far too rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nwaack is already crying like a hysterical bitc (Score:5, Insightful)
This really affects the precious nazi snowflake crybaby-victim that is Nwaack, you can tell by the hysterical (political...) crybaby routine with all the exclamations, lol. Sad. Her life must suck (!!!!!)
You must be one of those constantly-offended, angry "Progressives" who thinks anyone who disagrees with them should be censored and/or beaten. Are you a member of Antifa, by chance?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically it was you who first posted a ridiculous over-reaction.
I've noticed that conservatives do this a lot. Claim everyone else is overly offended, when in fact they are the ones posting angry rants.
Have you actually read the complaints people have? Do they sound anything like what you posted? Those are rhetorical questions.
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically it was you who first posted a ridiculous over-reaction.
So you're not smart enough to understand satire? My point was very obviously that they don't want dissenting views in their group, which is really hypocritical. Given my post is modded +5 insightful, everyone else seems to have understood this except for you.
I've noticed that conservatives do this a lot. Claim everyone else is overly offended, when in fact they are the ones posting angry rants.
I bet you notice a lot of things about conservatives but conveniently turn a blind eye to the stupid things liberals do. Is it nice and warm in your echo chamber? Oh, and by the way, I'm not a conservative. I consider myself an independent. Just yesterd
Re: (Score:1)
Tolerance for me, but not for thee (Score:5, Insightful)
The ethics of only hearing approved viewpoints and opinions.
How very fascistic of Goolag.
Re: (Score:2)
Tolerance for me, but not for thee
Looks like another 12 year old has discovered the "paradox of tolerance".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
How best to appoint these types of committees? (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>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
Google diapers (Score:1)
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
Sources confirmed earlier this century Google is full of intolerant tyrannical cry babies. Stay tuned for our special report at 11.
So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have a table with a Nazi and ten people talking to him.
We all breath the same air, so you're a nazi, a KKK member, a bigot and an idiot.
I can even prove the last one.
Re: (Score:3)
So if I pick up a debate with a Nazi to stop him from being the only one talking to the audience and provide a counterpoint to his, well, let's call them arguments for a lack of a better word, I am a Nazi?
Are you high?
Kay Coles James is way to far right (Score:2)
More Fake News from the Looney Left (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So you assume it.
No, it's obvious from wht they say and how they say it.
Project much?
Wanker much?
You mean the definition that's been around for centuries?
And yet "arms" meant something different in 1776 from what ie means now, yet you don't see the heritage foundation promoting that little fact. Words change meaning.
That flat out contradicts the publication on their website that I linked.
Only if you have no brain. Actually think through to the LOGICAL conclusion of what they're proposing.
Perhaps you'd lik
Re: (Score:2)
The picture of that burly bearded dude in women's bathrooms? He was born female.
Well fucking forgive me for assuming the bloke that looked like a bloke that you called a dude was actually a fucking bloke.
How fucking bigoted of me to dare to assume the gender of someone, even if I was actually fucking correct.
Bob & Joe getting married does not stop you worshiping whatever god or gods you so please. Claiming it does is you acting like a whiny little wanker so you can oppress them to get your jollies.
Given I'm an atheist I'm not into worshiping any gods. I get my jollies through other means.
You failing miserably to understand the implications for people that do have inane superstitious beliefs makes you a fuckwit, and lacking any empathy for them makes you a cunt.
I did. You ignored it.
I ignored what
Re: (Score:3)
Well fucking forgive me for assuming the bloke that looked like a bloke that you called a dude was actually a fucking bloke.
That, my man is the entire point. And yet you STILL don't seem to be able to grasp it.
1. That bloke was born female.
2. Laws about birth gender and bathrooms will force that man into the women's bathrooms
3. some people want to prevent those laws from being passed
4. The heritage fonudation wants to block that prevention.
the conclusion is that the Heritage foundation wants that man in wo
Re: (Score:1)
They have the right to whine about how gay people are opressing them by their very existence.
They have that right but you've posted no evidence of them using it.
I pointed out several place.
No, you did not.
E.g.
the Heritage foundation wants that man in women's bathrooms
No. That's you reading between the lines and finding a new Tolstoy novel instead of reading the actual words fucking written by them.
Stop ascribing to them things that they haven't said. It's dishonest and you haven't been able to back it up and I'm fed up with your inability to do anything more than lie, lie and lie again.
Stop lying. Fuck it, I'm stopping reading. Why do I always end up having to stop reading your respo
Re: (Score:3)
No, you did not.
You: [fingers in ears] lalalalalala
No.
Yes.
That's you reading between the lines
No that's me taking what someone has said and working out what would actually happen when those "suggestions" reach the real world, something you're apparently not prepared to do.
Fuck it, I'm stopping reading. Why do I always end up having to stop reading your responses?
Because you're a bigoted fuckwit who can't deal with the truth.
"Justice" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I hate Illinois revenge-by-proxy nazis.
The ethics (Score:1)
Preventing ad blocking in a browser.
Ensuing a search engine for Communist China won't find words and terms.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the whole tracking entire populations in order to maliciously target them with propaganda aimed at changing their behaviours.
Just leave (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart people can be raging bigots. There's no conflict there.
Definitions.... (Score:3)
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.)
{^_^}
Erh... Google employees? (Score:2)
You DO know that Google is a for-profit corporation and not a student's YouTube channel, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Now, now, don't forget to gas the LGBTQ folks, too. They're so convinced that they're all victims that they'd feel sad if they were left out.