6 ms·

Google employees call for removal of rightwing thinktank leader from AI council

29 points by drugme 8y ago

Mizza 8y ago
The practical of evil of working for a surveillance company like Google outweighs the hypothetical evil of working for a think tank like the Heritage foundation.
- zelon88 8y ago
  So going to work to get paid so you can afford life is more evil than choosing to spend your fortune of time and money taking rights away from people that don't mean anything to you?
  - Mizza 8y ago
    Give me a break, there are ways to make money besides working for an evil company. I do it. Most people do it. Nobody working at Google is there because they're struggling to "afford life".
  - jonfw 8y ago
    If Google is on your resume, you have plenty of employment options.
- threeseed 8y ago
  It says in your profile you founded Gun.io which has Cisco as a client ? You don't think that's a little hypocritical given that they have likely been involved in far more surveillance than Google ever has.
  - Mizza 8y ago
    I don't work for Cisco. Even then, Google's business model is surveillance, Cisco's is selling routers. I don't wake up every day to spy on people. If you do, you're a bad person in my book.
    - drivingmenuts 8y ago
      But you do work for a company far more entrenched in surveillance than Google. Cisco provides one of the base layers for a surveillance state, not just combing thru the data. Which is not to say Google has clean hands, just that you should consider Ccisco’s involvement as well.
      - jonfw 8y ago
        Is there evidence that Cisco is intentionally creating backdoors? A backdoor by mistake is incompetent, not evil. Building censored search products and collecting the amount of consumer data that google does without clearly informing consumers is evil, and it's clearly intentional. Cisco may not be perfect, but I've yet to see evidence that it's blatantly evil
    - drugme 8y ago
      I don't work for Cisco. If your client is Cisco -- then you work for Cisco (at least in part). It's as simple as that.
  - jonfw 8y ago
    I would just like to point out that this commenter's resume has nothing to do with whether or not Google is evil.
theorique 8y ago
Left-wing newspaper reports on actions of left-wing employees of major tech company based in left-wing geographic area. I'm quite sure this article is going to be unbiased...
- hello_friendos 8y ago
  newspaper reports on actions employees of major tech company -FTFY
  - jonfw 8y ago
    All you've done here is inaccurately paraphrase him, you've failed to make a point.
    - happytoexplain 8y ago
      The implication of your GP that your parent is implicitly criticizing is that merely having a political affiliation disqualifies one's opinions by default on matters of opposing political matters. I'd agree that was the implication made by the GP, and I'd agree that it's a destructive oversimplification.
- apl002 8y ago
  my first thoughts as well
- threeseed 8y ago
  Specifically how is it biased ? If you're going to make claims like this then you need to provide evidence. Because all I can see from the article is mostly a regurgitation of what was in the letter.
creaghpatr 8y ago
>The employees also said it was wrong to cite James’ appointment as an example of “diversity of thought”, writing: “This is a weaponization of the language of diversity. It's funny because she's a black woman.
kevwil 8y ago
... because God forbid there be a variety of perspectives on an AI council. People laughed at Musk for his AI doom rants, me included, but if this is how it's going so far ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- threatofrain 8y ago
  What sort of perspectives are we talking about? These are from the news article: https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108768455141007360 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108768455141007360 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497
  - yostrovs 8y ago
    "a variety of perspectives" was mentioned. This variety, I'm assuming, includes how the majority of people view the one topic you threw out. I'm getting the impression that you believe that having that opinion on that topic should disqualify someone from any important role. Am I correct?
    - threatofrain 8y ago
      No, I'm saying there are lots of people to advocate for "conservative" American perspectives. And therefore these perspectives listed here should make you ask whether you can find another candidate for a high level position. With regards to disqualifying criteria, you might find this interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government-heritage-foundation-think-tank.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government... How much do you know about the Heritage Foundation? Do you like their output?
      - yostrovs 8y ago
        You can always find people with the exact perspectives that you're looking for. I suggest the smaller the number, the better, and the fewer of these "boards" the better. The ultimate goal is to get as close to the one person that has a perfect set of perspectives on all topics, so that you can safely entrust that person to make the right decisions on everything. In the meantime the rest of us can go fishing.
hackerdack 8y ago
What if he/she was the leader of prominent left wing think tank?

29 points by drugme 8y ago

The practical of evil of working for a surveillance company like Google outweighs the hypothetical evil of working for a think tank like the Heritage foundation.

zelon88 8y ago
So going to work to get paid so you can afford life is more evil than choosing to spend your fortune of time and money taking rights away from people that don't mean anything to you?
- Mizza 8y ago
  Give me a break, there are ways to make money besides working for an evil company. I do it. Most people do it. Nobody working at Google is there because they're struggling to "afford life".
- jonfw 8y ago
  If Google is on your resume, you have plenty of employment options.
threeseed 8y ago
It says in your profile you founded Gun.io which has Cisco as a client ? You don't think that's a little hypocritical given that they have likely been involved in far more surveillance than Google ever has.
- Mizza 8y ago
  I don't work for Cisco. Even then, Google's business model is surveillance, Cisco's is selling routers. I don't wake up every day to spy on people. If you do, you're a bad person in my book.
  - drivingmenuts 8y ago
    But you do work for a company far more entrenched in surveillance than Google. Cisco provides one of the base layers for a surveillance state, not just combing thru the data. Which is not to say Google has clean hands, just that you should consider Ccisco’s involvement as well.
    - jonfw 8y ago
      Is there evidence that Cisco is intentionally creating backdoors? A backdoor by mistake is incompetent, not evil. Building censored search products and collecting the amount of consumer data that google does without clearly informing consumers is evil, and it's clearly intentional. Cisco may not be perfect, but I've yet to see evidence that it's blatantly evil
  - drugme 8y ago
    I don't work for Cisco. If your client is Cisco -- then you work for Cisco (at least in part). It's as simple as that.
- jonfw 8y ago
  I would just like to point out that this commenter's resume has nothing to do with whether or not Google is evil.

theorique 8y ago

Left-wing newspaper reports on actions of left-wing employees of major tech company based in left-wing geographic area. I'm quite sure this article is going to be unbiased...

hello_friendos 8y ago
newspaper reports on actions employees of major tech company -FTFY
- jonfw 8y ago
  All you've done here is inaccurately paraphrase him, you've failed to make a point.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    The implication of your GP that your parent is implicitly criticizing is that merely having a political affiliation disqualifies one's opinions by default on matters of opposing political matters. I'd agree that was the implication made by the GP, and I'd agree that it's a destructive oversimplification.
apl002 8y ago
my first thoughts as well
threeseed 8y ago
Specifically how is it biased ? If you're going to make claims like this then you need to provide evidence. Because all I can see from the article is mostly a regurgitation of what was in the letter.

creaghpatr 8y ago

>The employees also said it was wrong to cite James’ appointment as an example of “diversity of thought”, writing: “This is a weaponization of the language of diversity. It's funny because she's a black woman.

kevwil 8y ago

... because God forbid there be a variety of perspectives on an AI council. People laughed at Musk for his AI doom rants, me included, but if this is how it's going so far ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

threatofrain 8y ago
What sort of perspectives are we talking about? These are from the news article: https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108768455141007360 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108768455141007360 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497
- yostrovs 8y ago
  "a variety of perspectives" was mentioned. This variety, I'm assuming, includes how the majority of people view the one topic you threw out. I'm getting the impression that you believe that having that opinion on that topic should disqualify someone from any important role. Am I correct?
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    No, I'm saying there are lots of people to advocate for "conservative" American perspectives. And therefore these perspectives listed here should make you ask whether you can find another candidate for a high level position. With regards to disqualifying criteria, you might find this interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government-heritage-foundation-think-tank.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government... How much do you know about the Heritage Foundation? Do you like their output?
    - yostrovs 8y ago
      You can always find people with the exact perspectives that you're looking for. I suggest the smaller the number, the better, and the fewer of these "boards" the better. The ultimate goal is to get as close to the one person that has a perfect set of perspectives on all topics, so that you can safely entrust that person to make the right decisions on everything. In the meantime the rest of us can go fishing.

hackerdack 8y ago

What if he/she was the leader of prominent left wing think tank?