3 ms·

That seems like its not only reasonable, but what her job was. Now if she said, "Do this or I quit" then that is on her. But if she criticized them harshly th

That seems like its not only reasonable, but what her job was. Now if she said, "Do this or I quit" then that is on her. But if she criticized them harshly then that seems completely appropriate.

jariel 6y ago
"That seems like its not only reasonable" Is it though? There is bias in everything. There is bias in Googles original search - it crawled content. That content will be biased. Google search has been biased since the start. It has nothing to do with AI. Biased is also contextual: what does it mean for all of us non-Americans to see tons of American content in everything - the 'American bias' is overwhelmingly the strongest bias, where are the concerns about that? And how does bias imply a 'lack of ethics'? The entire consideration is ridiculous: 1) AI is not special and odes not deserve it's own ethical oversight. Every social tech has issues and it all needs to be thought about. 2) Someone with no real training in the issue may very well merely be injecting their own politics into the situation, and possibly overstating issuses. 3) There's nothing objective about morality or ethnics, so it's really hard to even find such at thing as 'objective'. What the company needs is a clean, comprehensive framework for the issue, and probably some independent oversight that can given them private assessments of where there are red flags. Not individuals who want to make a name for themselves on the issue publicly, and who might be part of some kind of ideological movement.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  There is bias in everything -- that is why you need ethics. You need to determine which biases are problematic and which aren't. If Google search favored Chinese government results in the US you'd probably say, "that seems biased in a bad way". Your disagreement seems less to do with that and more to do that you disagree with where her ethics rest. I think the reason why she pushes for marginalized groups is that those are the groups that are less likely to be able to stand for themselves and thus become the victims of the bias. A bias against corporate or powerful interests will likely be rectified relatively quickly.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Yes - the bias can be worse for marginalized groups and that's a legit issue for sure. But hiring activists, and particularly those with a focus on a very specific technology ... I think is a double-wrong. 'Ethics' is all encompassing, every company has to deal with it ... it needs probably specialization and some cold calculating. If there were some gigantic loophole whereupon marginalized people were truly thrown under the bus here, then maybe there's a case, but I seriously doubt that.

That seems like its not only reasonable, but what her job was. Now if she said, "Do this or I quit" then that is on her. But if she criticized them harshly then that seems completely appropriate.

jariel 6y ago

"That seems like its not only reasonable" Is it though? There is bias in everything. There is bias in Googles original search - it crawled content. That content will be biased. Google search has been biased since the start. It has nothing to do with AI. Biased is also contextual: what does it mean for all of us non-Americans to see tons of American content in everything - the 'American bias' is overwhelmingly the strongest bias, where are the concerns about that? And how does bias imply a 'lack of ethics'? The entire consideration is ridiculous: 1) AI is not special and odes not deserve it's own ethical oversight. Every social tech has issues and it all needs to be thought about. 2) Someone with no real training in the issue may very well merely be injecting their own politics into the situation, and possibly overstating issuses. 3) There's nothing objective about morality or ethnics, so it's really hard to even find such at thing as 'objective'. What the company needs is a clean, comprehensive framework for the issue, and probably some independent oversight that can given them private assessments of where there are red flags. Not individuals who want to make a name for themselves on the issue publicly, and who might be part of some kind of ideological movement.

kenjackson 6y ago
There is bias in everything -- that is why you need ethics. You need to determine which biases are problematic and which aren't. If Google search favored Chinese government results in the US you'd probably say, "that seems biased in a bad way". Your disagreement seems less to do with that and more to do that you disagree with where her ethics rest. I think the reason why she pushes for marginalized groups is that those are the groups that are less likely to be able to stand for themselves and thus become the victims of the bias. A bias against corporate or powerful interests will likely be rectified relatively quickly.
- jariel 6y ago
  Yes - the bias can be worse for marginalized groups and that's a legit issue for sure. But hiring activists, and particularly those with a focus on a very specific technology ... I think is a double-wrong. 'Ethics' is all encompassing, every company has to deal with it ... it needs probably specialization and some cold calculating. If there were some gigantic loophole whereupon marginalized people were truly thrown under the bus here, then maybe there's a case, but I seriously doubt that.