3 ms·

Of course he was vague. This just happened, tensions are high, and no doubt Timnit is talking to an employment lawyer to find out what both parties' right and

by sbarre 6y ago

Of course he was vague. This just happened, tensions are high, and no doubt Timnit is talking to an employment lawyer to find out what both parties' right and obligations are, and I'm sure Google's lawyers are also getting all their ducks in a row. This is spin at best, gaslighting at worst. We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)..

Barrin92 6y ago
>We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)) Not really sure what the point of an 'ethical AI' department is when there's no transparency or accountability facing the public because if it can be cancelled internally at any point if it threatens the company you've basically recreated some kind of Soviet ministry for truth
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The point is to do foundational research, and to help Google ensure that its AI development complies with its own ethics. Google did try to set up an AI ethics board for accountability to the public, but it fell apart, because many segments of the public have ethical views which were seen as unacceptable. (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial-ai-ethics-panel.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial...)
- sbarre 6y ago
  I think you misunderstand. This is an HR matter, not an "Ethical AI" matter. The official outputs and products of that department should (hopefully) be public and shared, I 100% agree with you. But that's not what this is about. This matter in particular is an internal employee/employer dispute and dismissal, and is only public because of the high profile of the persons involved. And what I meant that we'll never get the full story is that these kinds of situations are always more complicated than they appear. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and are not privy to the history that led to this moment. These kinds of things don't just happen out of nowhere. If I had to guess who's "more right" here, I'd side with Timnit, personally.. but again I don't have all the facts, so it's just a gut feeling based on what I know about how large enterprises work.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  If Exxon had a fracking safety department it's goal would be to help Exxon make fracking safer, not to call out Exxon for being an unsafe fracker.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    If Exxon had a fracking safety department, it's goal would be to help Exxon sell it's fracking as safe.

by sbarre 6y ago

Barrin92 6y ago

>We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)) Not really sure what the point of an 'ethical AI' department is when there's no transparency or accountability facing the public because if it can be cancelled internally at any point if it threatens the company you've basically recreated some kind of Soviet ministry for truth

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The point is to do foundational research, and to help Google ensure that its AI development complies with its own ethics. Google did try to set up an AI ethics board for accountability to the public, but it fell apart, because many segments of the public have ethical views which were seen as unacceptable. (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial-ai-ethics-panel.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial...)
sbarre 6y ago
I think you misunderstand. This is an HR matter, not an "Ethical AI" matter. The official outputs and products of that department should (hopefully) be public and shared, I 100% agree with you. But that's not what this is about. This matter in particular is an internal employee/employer dispute and dismissal, and is only public because of the high profile of the persons involved. And what I meant that we'll never get the full story is that these kinds of situations are always more complicated than they appear. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and are not privy to the history that led to this moment. These kinds of things don't just happen out of nowhere. If I had to guess who's "more right" here, I'd side with Timnit, personally.. but again I don't have all the facts, so it's just a gut feeling based on what I know about how large enterprises work.
JamesBarney 6y ago
If Exxon had a fracking safety department it's goal would be to help Exxon make fracking safer, not to call out Exxon for being an unsafe fracker.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  If Exxon had a fracking safety department, it's goal would be to help Exxon sell it's fracking as safe.