5 ms·

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 se

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 7y 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 7y ago
  Did she "torpedo" their efforts, or merely point out that it was already holed below the waterline, by design?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rdtsc 7y 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.
    - Angostura 7y ago
      It perhaps assumes a company which was actively and seriously interested in the area of AI ethics.
      - r2215 7y ago
        Ding ding ding!
- pmiller2 7y ago
  The NLRA protects concerted action by employees regarding working conditions. Arguably, this could fall under that definition.
  - sverige 7y ago
    How is an outside ethics panel going to affect their working conditions? The people on the panel don't have any say on employees' pay, promotions, disciplinary actions, assignments, or anything else that might affect their working conditions. The idea was to have some people from outside the company look at the tech and its potential hazards and provide some input on the ethics of developing and deploying it. People inside the company said, No, we don't want that particular viewpoint to be have a seat at the table on this outside committee. The ethics panel had nothing at all to do with their working conditions.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  You are commenting on different things. She pointed out the political oriented people on the ai committee who knew absolutely nothing about technology or ai. They were just prominent conservatives, who had no apparent reason to be there. Pointing out something like that is vastly different than saying you killed your own project. Pointing out what appear to be politically connected but otherwise useless people on leadership groups is a good thing I think.
  - sverige 7y ago
    I don't understand the argument that someone participating on an ethics panel has to be an expert on the tech. The more important thing is that they should be conversant with ethics. The questions involved have to do with should we build this tech, not how to build this tech. To argue otherwise means that the vast majority of people should not be allowed to have opinions on the ethics of nuclear weapons, medical procedures, or any other topic where they are not subject matter experts. AI tech and the ethics of using it is rightly a political topic, since it has the potential to affect everyone on the planet. Preemptively saying that certain viewpoints have no place at the table simply means the political discussion will move from a friendlier environment within Google to the (likely more hostile to Google's interests) environment of general politics in the U.S. Personally I think that might be a better outcome, but from Google's standpoint it's potentially a disaster since it might result in heavy regulation of their business.
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      You don't have to be an expert, but imho you should be someone who has a grasp of technology, science and the world on a very focused technology issue. If you are someone who denies humans impact the earth's climate, if you argue in favor of people who think the world is only 8,000 years old, I don't trust you to make choices about science based policy.
taneq 7y ago
> the status quo, which was employers firebombing their employees or highering mecenaries to shoot them Did we not, uh, already have laws against firebombing or hiring hitpersons? I would have thought these kinds of rights-to-collective-action laws are more about employers just summarily sacking people who do things that they're legally entitled to do but that are politically disadvantageous to their employers.

sverige 7y 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 7y ago
Did she "torpedo" their efforts, or merely point out that it was already holed below the waterline, by design?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rdtsc 7y 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.
  - Angostura 7y ago
    It perhaps assumes a company which was actively and seriously interested in the area of AI ethics.
    - r2215 7y ago
      Ding ding ding!
pmiller2 7y ago
The NLRA protects concerted action by employees regarding working conditions. Arguably, this could fall under that definition.
- sverige 7y ago
  How is an outside ethics panel going to affect their working conditions? The people on the panel don't have any say on employees' pay, promotions, disciplinary actions, assignments, or anything else that might affect their working conditions. The idea was to have some people from outside the company look at the tech and its potential hazards and provide some input on the ethics of developing and deploying it. People inside the company said, No, we don't want that particular viewpoint to be have a seat at the table on this outside committee. The ethics panel had nothing at all to do with their working conditions.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
You are commenting on different things. She pointed out the political oriented people on the ai committee who knew absolutely nothing about technology or ai. They were just prominent conservatives, who had no apparent reason to be there. Pointing out something like that is vastly different than saying you killed your own project. Pointing out what appear to be politically connected but otherwise useless people on leadership groups is a good thing I think.
- sverige 7y ago
  I don't understand the argument that someone participating on an ethics panel has to be an expert on the tech. The more important thing is that they should be conversant with ethics. The questions involved have to do with should we build this tech, not how to build this tech. To argue otherwise means that the vast majority of people should not be allowed to have opinions on the ethics of nuclear weapons, medical procedures, or any other topic where they are not subject matter experts. AI tech and the ethics of using it is rightly a political topic, since it has the potential to affect everyone on the planet. Preemptively saying that certain viewpoints have no place at the table simply means the political discussion will move from a friendlier environment within Google to the (likely more hostile to Google's interests) environment of general politics in the U.S. Personally I think that might be a better outcome, but from Google's standpoint it's potentially a disaster since it might result in heavy regulation of their business.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    You don't have to be an expert, but imho you should be someone who has a grasp of technology, science and the world on a very focused technology issue. If you are someone who denies humans impact the earth's climate, if you argue in favor of people who think the world is only 8,000 years old, I don't trust you to make choices about science based policy.

taneq 7y ago

> the status quo, which was employers firebombing their employees or highering mecenaries to shoot them Did we not, uh, already have laws against firebombing or hiring hitpersons? I would have thought these kinds of rights-to-collective-action laws are more about employers just summarily sacking people who do things that they're legally entitled to do but that are politically disadvantageous to their employers.