7 ms·

> Meredith Whittaker, who leads Google’s Open Research, said that after Google disbanded its external AI ethics council on April 4, she was told that her role w

> Meredith Whittaker, who leads Google’s Open Research, said that after Google disbanded its external AI ethics council on April 4, she was told that her role would be “changed dramatically.” Whittaker said she was told that, in order to stay at the company, she would have to “abandon” her work on AI ethics and her role at AI Now Institute, a research center she cofounded at New York University. I don't understand why a person who organized the pressure group that led to Google disbanding their AI ethics group would expect her role not to change, since she's involved in AI ethics, the very thing she helped sink. She helped make it politically toxic and a PR disaster for her own employer. I'm no fan of Google, but they tried to organize something to satisfy a politically diverse group of stakeholders to at least have a discussion on this topic, only to have their efforts very publicly sabotaged by one of their own. Are they really obligated to continue to fund the work she's done to harm the company?

ahelwer 8y ago
They didn't try to do that, though. They tried to organize a group of people who largely (although not exclusively) knew nothing about AI, or ethics, to rubber-stamp their actions and assuage the concerns of regulators & watchdogs. Ethics laundering, basically.
- sverige 8y ago
  That's a really huge assumption, considering they never met (afaict), let alone deliberated anything or issued recommendations. Google sought input from outside their bubble and those inside the bubble immediately protested based on identity politics. There are a lot more people outside the bubble than inside, and this action makes it seem like Google doesn't give a shit what they think. It's the sort of thing that makes heavy regulation appealing even for those who normally would oppose regulation on principle. How does that benefit Google?
  - ahelwer 8y ago
    There was widespread protest from outside the bubble, too. You'll be unsurprised to learn the entire AI ethics space is being enthusiastically colonized by Thought Leaders all too happy to hold "discussions" in service of whatever their corporate funders desire. Oh sure there'll be some token pearl-clutching, but you can't stop progress (toward ubiquitous facial recognition) right? Anyway, if you're interested in seeing all the ridiculous shenanigans these people try to pull I recommend following @farbandish on twitter.
    - ehsankia 8y ago
      I thought it was only 1 or 2 people out of 8 who were problematic; How is that "colonizing"? It also stills feels disingenuous to judge all 8 people's intent and position without them meeting a single time or making any deliberation.
      - notbob 8y ago
        > I thought it was only 1 or 2 people out of 8 who were problematic I think ahelwer meant the AI ethics space in general, not just this panel. As a researcher who has been working in ML and also software engineering ethics since long before "AI ethics" became a thing, I've definitely noticed a massive infusion of self-promoting "thought leaders" who have zero expertise in either of those things. Most of those people are MBAs with little or no actual business experience and zero software knowledge (let alone ML or AI research experience). Their ethics background usually amounts to a few undergraduate philosophy courses that, ironically, failed to teach them the one thing that a philosophy course should teach: a modicum intellectual humility. And yes, those folks tend to care mostly about their paychecks.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      > There was widespread protest from outside the bubble, too It seems implausible that anyone not in a bubble cares what happens to Google's 8-person no-actual-power ethics team. It could be composed of witches and warlocks who spend their days researching pentagrams and nobody should care. There are a lot of small, questionable teams in large companies. It is only remotely newsworthy as evidence that Google culturally purges conservative voices. Even with that frame; it could just be a beat up. I'd define the bubble as people who were getting worked up over it; they are obviously culturally synchronized because there isn't an obvious rational link.
- 3xblah 8y ago
  That is what someone should be protesting, isn't it? Perhaps the easiest way to help the world avoid the potential problems created by the Google's work is not to work for Google? These protesting employees, whatever the cause du jour, are all in a compromised position. They need/want their jobs at Google. They cannot effectively function as internal watchdogs and regulators. They are not representative of the wider affected population; we do not elect them. Neither Google nor Facebook can be relied on to "regulate itself", whether it comes from top-down decision-making or in response to internal protests.
  - r2215 8y ago
    This should be the canary/coal mine for whether or not regular humans can have opinions that differ from the master class/billionaires. Even if you are a titan in the field of AI Ethics, google has no use for you if you disagree with the masters. Google will lose 2 unbelievable female scientists, who also have exhibited far more compassion and empathy then we can expect from googles AI in the future.
serioussecurity 8y ago
Yes they are. It's called "protected concerted activity" and it's protected under the national labor relations act. These laws were passed because they were seen as better than the status quo, which was employers firebombing their employees or highering mecenaries to shoot them.
- sverige 8y ago
  Google telling Whittaker that they don't want her doing work on AI ethics after she torpedoed their first effort to have a public discussion is not even close to firebombing her or hiring mercenaries to shoot her. Nor was she engaged in trying to form an employees' union, which I think is the activity protected by the NLRA. They didn't even fire her. Apparently they just said, We don't want you involved in the AI ethics discussion going forward. That seems reasonable, considering her past efforts in that area have not benefited Google in any way, but rather harmed them. Just as employers can't firebomb their employees for organizing, employees can't bury steel spikes in logs headed for the sawmill.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    Did she "torpedo" their efforts, or merely point out that it was already holed below the waterline, by design?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rdtsc 8y ago
      > or merely point out that it was already holed below the waterline, by design? That assumes some humility and objectiveness from her higher-ups. "Oh you publicly criticized our project, behind which some of us have staked our reputation. And you created a major negative PR event as well. Thank you for that! We finally see our mistake and we'll apologize and move on". In some hypothetical rational universe it might play out like that, but in reality I don't see how that was supposed to turn out without some repercussions for her.
aaronlifshin 8y ago
Whittaker organized a walkout to protest the way that allegations of sexual assault were mishandled. Is there evidence that she also organized the petition related to the external AI ethics group in Google?
- sverige 8y ago
  She was active in organizing the petition drive that successfully pressured Google to keep Kay Coles James off the committee. [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/01/google-kay-coles-james-removal-employees-letter?source=techstories.org https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/01/google-ka... [1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/04/google-employees-call-on-company-to-kick-heritage-foundation-ghoul-off-ai-ethics-board/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/04/google-employees-call-on-... [2] https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/04/leftist-googlers-kay-coles-james/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/04/leftist-googlers-kay-cole... [3] https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/05/google-drops-heritage-foundation-president/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/05/google-drops-heritage-fou... [4] https://www.newstarget.com/2019-04-06-leaked-emails-suggest-google-is-a-leftist-cult.html https://www.newstarget.com/2019-04-06-leaked-emails-suggest-...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ninedays 8y ago
Being asked to abandon a current role is way different than Google deciding to remove said positions. It's the same difference between leaving the company and being fired. Even though in both ways you're not in the company anymore, how it was done is an important factor. Google is basically asking the employee to resign instead of telling her that her position has been removed.
- r2215 8y ago
  Because she is a prominent female scientist, and she’s proven to be mentally competent to handle this s-storm in an admirable way. It’s a horrible look.

ahelwer 8y ago

They didn't try to do that, though. They tried to organize a group of people who largely (although not exclusively) knew nothing about AI, or ethics, to rubber-stamp their actions and assuage the concerns of regulators & watchdogs. Ethics laundering, basically.

sverige 8y ago
That's a really huge assumption, considering they never met (afaict), let alone deliberated anything or issued recommendations. Google sought input from outside their bubble and those inside the bubble immediately protested based on identity politics. There are a lot more people outside the bubble than inside, and this action makes it seem like Google doesn't give a shit what they think. It's the sort of thing that makes heavy regulation appealing even for those who normally would oppose regulation on principle. How does that benefit Google?
- ahelwer 8y ago
  There was widespread protest from outside the bubble, too. You'll be unsurprised to learn the entire AI ethics space is being enthusiastically colonized by Thought Leaders all too happy to hold "discussions" in service of whatever their corporate funders desire. Oh sure there'll be some token pearl-clutching, but you can't stop progress (toward ubiquitous facial recognition) right? Anyway, if you're interested in seeing all the ridiculous shenanigans these people try to pull I recommend following @farbandish on twitter.
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    I thought it was only 1 or 2 people out of 8 who were problematic; How is that "colonizing"? It also stills feels disingenuous to judge all 8 people's intent and position without them meeting a single time or making any deliberation.
    - notbob 8y ago
      > I thought it was only 1 or 2 people out of 8 who were problematic I think ahelwer meant the AI ethics space in general, not just this panel. As a researcher who has been working in ML and also software engineering ethics since long before "AI ethics" became a thing, I've definitely noticed a massive infusion of self-promoting "thought leaders" who have zero expertise in either of those things. Most of those people are MBAs with little or no actual business experience and zero software knowledge (let alone ML or AI research experience). Their ethics background usually amounts to a few undergraduate philosophy courses that, ironically, failed to teach them the one thing that a philosophy course should teach: a modicum intellectual humility. And yes, those folks tend to care mostly about their paychecks.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > There was widespread protest from outside the bubble, too It seems implausible that anyone not in a bubble cares what happens to Google's 8-person no-actual-power ethics team. It could be composed of witches and warlocks who spend their days researching pentagrams and nobody should care. There are a lot of small, questionable teams in large companies. It is only remotely newsworthy as evidence that Google culturally purges conservative voices. Even with that frame; it could just be a beat up. I'd define the bubble as people who were getting worked up over it; they are obviously culturally synchronized because there isn't an obvious rational link.
3xblah 8y ago
That is what someone should be protesting, isn't it? Perhaps the easiest way to help the world avoid the potential problems created by the Google's work is not to work for Google? These protesting employees, whatever the cause du jour, are all in a compromised position. They need/want their jobs at Google. They cannot effectively function as internal watchdogs and regulators. They are not representative of the wider affected population; we do not elect them. Neither Google nor Facebook can be relied on to "regulate itself", whether it comes from top-down decision-making or in response to internal protests.
- r2215 8y ago
  This should be the canary/coal mine for whether or not regular humans can have opinions that differ from the master class/billionaires. Even if you are a titan in the field of AI Ethics, google has no use for you if you disagree with the masters. Google will lose 2 unbelievable female scientists, who also have exhibited far more compassion and empathy then we can expect from googles AI in the future.

serioussecurity 8y ago

Yes they are. It's called "protected concerted activity" and it's protected under the national labor relations act. These laws were passed because they were seen as better than the status quo, which was employers firebombing their employees or highering mecenaries to shoot them.

sverige 8y ago
Google telling Whittaker that they don't want her doing work on AI ethics after she torpedoed their first effort to have a public discussion is not even close to firebombing her or hiring mercenaries to shoot her. Nor was she engaged in trying to form an employees' union, which I think is the activity protected by the NLRA. They didn't even fire her. Apparently they just said, We don't want you involved in the AI ethics discussion going forward. That seems reasonable, considering her past efforts in that area have not benefited Google in any way, but rather harmed them. Just as employers can't firebomb their employees for organizing, employees can't bury steel spikes in logs headed for the sawmill.
- Angostura 8y ago
  Did she "torpedo" their efforts, or merely point out that it was already holed below the waterline, by design?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rdtsc 8y ago
    > or merely point out that it was already holed below the waterline, by design? That assumes some humility and objectiveness from her higher-ups. "Oh you publicly criticized our project, behind which some of us have staked our reputation. And you created a major negative PR event as well. Thank you for that! We finally see our mistake and we'll apologize and move on". In some hypothetical rational universe it might play out like that, but in reality I don't see how that was supposed to turn out without some repercussions for her.

aaronlifshin 8y ago

Whittaker organized a walkout to protest the way that allegations of sexual assault were mishandled. Is there evidence that she also organized the petition related to the external AI ethics group in Google?

sverige 8y ago
She was active in organizing the petition drive that successfully pressured Google to keep Kay Coles James off the committee. [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/01/google-kay-coles-james-removal-employees-letter?source=techstories.org https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/01/google-ka... [1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/04/google-employees-call-on-company-to-kick-heritage-foundation-ghoul-off-ai-ethics-board/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/04/google-employees-call-on-... [2] https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/04/leftist-googlers-kay-coles-james/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/04/leftist-googlers-kay-cole... [3] https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/05/google-drops-heritage-foundation-president/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/05/google-drops-heritage-fou... [4] https://www.newstarget.com/2019-04-06-leaked-emails-suggest-google-is-a-leftist-cult.html https://www.newstarget.com/2019-04-06-leaked-emails-suggest-...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ninedays 8y ago

Being asked to abandon a current role is way different than Google deciding to remove said positions. It's the same difference between leaving the company and being fired. Even though in both ways you're not in the company anymore, how it was done is an important factor. Google is basically asking the employee to resign instead of telling her that her position has been removed.

r2215 8y ago
Because she is a prominent female scientist, and she’s proven to be mentally competent to handle this s-storm in an admirable way. It’s a horrible look.