4 ms·

But this supposes that there is some deep and nefarious need for Google to kill a paper written by some AI Ethics people. From looking at their recent pubs I ca

But this supposes that there is some deep and nefarious need for Google to kill a paper written by some AI Ethics people. From looking at their recent pubs I can't think of anything remotely significant about any one paper they could write. Hopefully we'll get a full leak at some point.

joshuamorton 6y ago
If it's any consolation, this also deeply confuses me. The entire handling of the squashing doesn't really make sense given the context I have.
jeremysalwen 6y ago
Nothing deep and nefarious needed. The rules were ambiguous (not enforced) and they didn't want this paper published, so they just had to say "no". No extreme motivation is necessary. It's hard to imagine that they expected an ultimatum from Timnit, and the resulting PR disaster. Now that it's in the news, I imagine they actually do have a "deep" need to protect their image by controlling the narrative. Full Disclosure: I work at Google.
- mattdeboard 6y ago
  I was re-reading The Gervais Principle this past week. It really does cover this situation & what you describe as the ambiguity in the rules in Part V, “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.” https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-v-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-... > This is a simple and child-like example of the operation of a basic human instinct: the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose or HIWTYL (let’s pronounce that “hightail”) instinct. It is the tendency to grab more than your fair share of the rewards of success, and less than your fair share of the blame for failure. Now whether one buys into that as literally true or not is one thing, but I think it is definitely a useful way of thinking about situations like these. In fact, the “Golden Ticket Reconsidered” section at the link sounds somewhat like I imagined incentives within AI ethics research at Google are structured: 1. Cut a deal for performance-linked bonus for successful initiative 2. Set up a committee and charter it to collect, vet & recommend ideas 3. Drop hints & suggestions to create things that leadership favors 4. Create appropriate urgency in the work of the committee to achieve the risk-levels you want in the ideas produced. The outcome of such a system: > If it works, you praise everybody generously, hand out a few gift certificates, keep your bonus to yourself, and move on. If it fails, you blame the people in charge of the work for failing to consider an “obvious” (with 20/20 hindsight) issue. The chair of such a committee would likely be Clueless [a term of art in the blog series], his appointment being a false honor — a case of being set up take a fall Further on, the author brings up the “Hanlon Dodge.” Dean’s characterization of Gebru’s termination (“resignation”) seems quite like that to me.

joshuamorton 6y ago

If it's any consolation, this also deeply confuses me. The entire handling of the squashing doesn't really make sense given the context I have.

jeremysalwen 6y ago

Nothing deep and nefarious needed. The rules were ambiguous (not enforced) and they didn't want this paper published, so they just had to say "no". No extreme motivation is necessary. It's hard to imagine that they expected an ultimatum from Timnit, and the resulting PR disaster. Now that it's in the news, I imagine they actually do have a "deep" need to protect their image by controlling the narrative. Full Disclosure: I work at Google.

mattdeboard 6y ago
I was re-reading The Gervais Principle this past week. It really does cover this situation & what you describe as the ambiguity in the rules in Part V, “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.” https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-v-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-... > This is a simple and child-like example of the operation of a basic human instinct: the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose or HIWTYL (let’s pronounce that “hightail”) instinct. It is the tendency to grab more than your fair share of the rewards of success, and less than your fair share of the blame for failure. Now whether one buys into that as literally true or not is one thing, but I think it is definitely a useful way of thinking about situations like these. In fact, the “Golden Ticket Reconsidered” section at the link sounds somewhat like I imagined incentives within AI ethics research at Google are structured: 1. Cut a deal for performance-linked bonus for successful initiative 2. Set up a committee and charter it to collect, vet & recommend ideas 3. Drop hints & suggestions to create things that leadership favors 4. Create appropriate urgency in the work of the committee to achieve the risk-levels you want in the ideas produced. The outcome of such a system: > If it works, you praise everybody generously, hand out a few gift certificates, keep your bonus to yourself, and move on. If it fails, you blame the people in charge of the work for failing to consider an “obvious” (with 20/20 hindsight) issue. The chair of such a committee would likely be Clueless [a term of art in the blog series], his appointment being a false honor — a case of being set up take a fall Further on, the author brings up the “Hanlon Dodge.” Dean’s characterization of Gebru’s termination (“resignation”) seems quite like that to me.