6 ms·

In most cases, yes. In this case, because the paper was about bias in Google's AI models, it might not be just a business decision because the racial bias descr

In most cases, yes. In this case, because the paper was about bias in Google's AI models, it might not be just a business decision because the racial bias described in that paper might result in a disparate impact on users, which could be in violation of state or federal law.

breatheoften 6y ago
This is pretty dystopian ... 1. There exist laws to prevent discrimination against people based on protected attributes 2. ML models make predictions based on attributes without interpretability (it's not possible to prove that protected attributes are not factoring into model predictions) 3. Empirical observation that a model proxies a protected property exposes corporation to liability for regulatory non compliance 4. Therefore any study that could expose bias of a model used in production is to be road blocked or prevented ... To combat flows like above -- seems like regulators are going to need to update rules with third party audits and an incentive structure that encourages self-regulation and derisks self-detection and self-reporting of non-intentional violations... ideally google should not be put into a position where it is incentivized to police its own ai ethics research to ensure that such research doesn't expose their own illegal/non-compliant activity ...
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  A company can still protect themselves by fixing the model and delaying publication of a study about it's bias until after the statute of limitations had expired. In this case, there were recent changes to the statute of limitations for CA laws that extended it from a year to 3 years, which could be why this whole process seems weird. https://www.ebglaw.com/news/ab-9-extends-employees-statute-of-limitations-to-file-discrimination-charges-in-california-to-three-years-employers-this-affects-you/#:~:text=On%20October%2010%2C%202019%2C%20California,DFEH%E2%80%9D)%20to%20three%20years https://www.ebglaw.com/news/ab-9-extends-employees-statute-o....
- sjg007 6y ago
  Hmm... makes one curious. Google either has an AI to rate employees or screen interview candidates.
trhway 6y ago
well, imagine a manager in your company publishing a paper stating that your company products are probably violating state or federal laws. All that without raising the issue up the proper management chain, without working through the correct procedure with compliance and legal depts, and without going to law enforcement if the law violation is still continues after all that.

breatheoften 6y ago

This is pretty dystopian ... 1. There exist laws to prevent discrimination against people based on protected attributes 2. ML models make predictions based on attributes without interpretability (it's not possible to prove that protected attributes are not factoring into model predictions) 3. Empirical observation that a model proxies a protected property exposes corporation to liability for regulatory non compliance 4. Therefore any study that could expose bias of a model used in production is to be road blocked or prevented ... To combat flows like above -- seems like regulators are going to need to update rules with third party audits and an incentive structure that encourages self-regulation and derisks self-detection and self-reporting of non-intentional violations... ideally google should not be put into a position where it is incentivized to police its own ai ethics research to ensure that such research doesn't expose their own illegal/non-compliant activity ...

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
A company can still protect themselves by fixing the model and delaying publication of a study about it's bias until after the statute of limitations had expired. In this case, there were recent changes to the statute of limitations for CA laws that extended it from a year to 3 years, which could be why this whole process seems weird. https://www.ebglaw.com/news/ab-9-extends-employees-statute-of-limitations-to-file-discrimination-charges-in-california-to-three-years-employers-this-affects-you/#:~:text=On%20October%2010%2C%202019%2C%20California,DFEH%E2%80%9D)%20to%20three%20years https://www.ebglaw.com/news/ab-9-extends-employees-statute-o....
sjg007 6y ago
Hmm... makes one curious. Google either has an AI to rate employees or screen interview candidates.

trhway 6y ago

well, imagine a manager in your company publishing a paper stating that your company products are probably violating state or federal laws. All that without raising the issue up the proper management chain, without working through the correct procedure with compliance and legal depts, and without going to law enforcement if the law violation is still continues after all that.