5 ms·

It's called "insubordination".

loopz 6y ago
Is insubordination to have a different opinion, and then offer paths to agreement between professionals? Is insubordination to represent your responsibility area, as Ethical AI Researcher? Is insubordination to send an email in order to establish dialogue around matters of disagreement between professionals?
- jollofricepeas 6y ago
  Good point. I think its important to leave a link to the paper here for HN. Please read it or at least its intro & conclusion. https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF After reading, it seems very much in line with her role as an ethicist. She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. Its a bit sad that they attempted to censure such an innocuous paper that without malice states “there are risks to consider.”
  - tertius 6y ago
    > She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. What's the strongest argument against her "merely" doing this?
    - loopz 6y ago
      We haven't heard any arguments, only that management can do as they please when they don't like results of AI Ethics Research. We'll likely not get anything substantial, ever, either. As I've stated in other post, this is very, very troublesome for AI and Google. OTOH, Google has much emphasis on ethics in AI/ML otherwise. But the whole company, especially management, need to put actions in alignment with their words on this matter.
      - tertius 6y ago
        What is the strongest argument that you can come up with? Not that's been presented.
        loopz 6y ago
        My strongest argument is AGAINST managers at Google getting to micromanage, censor and to revenge-fire a researcher, just because they personally disagree with their published AI Ethics Research. A job said researcher was tasked with and leading. Such behaviour, unless corrected, undermines Google's entire AI/ML and cloud operations.
        tertius 6y ago
        That's not what I asked. If you can't argue the counter of your own position in the most honest way possible then either you're not prepared or not honest. It's called steel manning.
        loopz 6y ago
        The best rebuttal so far has been to decline to comment. However, without revealing names the paper outlines internal company matters, presenting opinions and tautology that do not fit proper format of professionally published research. Instead of reworking a flawed paper, the researcher escalated and exposed individual opinion, publicly. Such company representation is out of scope for research positions. As Google could not agree to terms of email, it was taken as resignation notice.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Let's try applying this, shall we: I believe we should have no curruption in Russia. By your logic, unless I can give a strong argument in favour of corruption, I am not prepared or not honest? Are you prepared to give a rigorous argument in favour of: terrorist attacks, slavery, eugenics, facism, child labour, sexism
        6y ago
    - jollofricepeas 6y ago
      The strongest argument for Google is it not wanting people to know that there are risks, no? The strongest argument for her not doing it is keeping her job vs maintaining her professional responsibility as an ethicist, no?
      - tertius 6y ago
        That's not a strong argument. Can you come up with anything better?
lostjohnny 6y ago
Doesn't that apply only to soldiers? Does Google really consider its employers soldiers that have to obey to orders?
romanoderoma 6y ago
Do Google employers work in barracks?

Is insubordination to have a different opinion, and then offer paths to agreement between professionals? Is insubordination to represent your responsibility area, as Ethical AI Researcher? Is insubordination to send an email in order to establish dialogue around matters of disagreement between professionals?

jollofricepeas 6y ago
Good point. I think its important to leave a link to the paper here for HN. Please read it or at least its intro & conclusion. https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF After reading, it seems very much in line with her role as an ethicist. She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. Its a bit sad that they attempted to censure such an innocuous paper that without malice states “there are risks to consider.”
- tertius 6y ago
  > She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. What's the strongest argument against her "merely" doing this?
  - loopz 6y ago
    We haven't heard any arguments, only that management can do as they please when they don't like results of AI Ethics Research. We'll likely not get anything substantial, ever, either. As I've stated in other post, this is very, very troublesome for AI and Google. OTOH, Google has much emphasis on ethics in AI/ML otherwise. But the whole company, especially management, need to put actions in alignment with their words on this matter.
    - tertius 6y ago
      What is the strongest argument that you can come up with? Not that's been presented.
      - loopz 6y ago
        My strongest argument is AGAINST managers at Google getting to micromanage, censor and to revenge-fire a researcher, just because they personally disagree with their published AI Ethics Research. A job said researcher was tasked with and leading. Such behaviour, unless corrected, undermines Google's entire AI/ML and cloud operations.
        tertius 6y ago
        That's not what I asked. If you can't argue the counter of your own position in the most honest way possible then either you're not prepared or not honest. It's called steel manning.
        loopz 6y ago
        The best rebuttal so far has been to decline to comment. However, without revealing names the paper outlines internal company matters, presenting opinions and tautology that do not fit proper format of professionally published research. Instead of reworking a flawed paper, the researcher escalated and exposed individual opinion, publicly. Such company representation is out of scope for research positions. As Google could not agree to terms of email, it was taken as resignation notice.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Let's try applying this, shall we: I believe we should have no curruption in Russia. By your logic, unless I can give a strong argument in favour of corruption, I am not prepared or not honest? Are you prepared to give a rigorous argument in favour of: terrorist attacks, slavery, eugenics, facism, child labour, sexism
        6y ago
  - jollofricepeas 6y ago
    The strongest argument for Google is it not wanting people to know that there are risks, no? The strongest argument for her not doing it is keeping her job vs maintaining her professional responsibility as an ethicist, no?
    - tertius 6y ago
      That's not a strong argument. Can you come up with anything better?

lostjohnny 6y ago

Doesn't that apply only to soldiers? Does Google really consider its employers soldiers that have to obey to orders?

romanoderoma 6y ago

Do Google employers work in barracks?