4 ms·

One thing I've wondered: what is the purpose of Google's ethical AI group? What utility does it provide to the corporation? I suspect the primary motivation fo

by shoo 6y ago

One thing I've wondered: what is the purpose of Google's ethical AI group? What utility does it provide to the corporation? I suspect the primary motivation for funding ethical AI work is _public relations_ (or less kindly, corporate propaganda) - to help mitigate damage to Google's brands and reputation by public concern surrounding artificial intelligence. It is well understood that it can be difficult to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends upon them not understanding it. Conversely, it may be difficult to remain employed and continue drawing that paycheck if you publish research that does not portray your employer in a good light, especially if the underlying reason for your role is public relations. Here's a fun experiment: open up Alphabet's annual report from last year [goog10-k2019], search for the keyword "ethic", and there are two hits, both under item 1A, risk factors. The latter keyword match for "ethic" in the 10-K is regarding supply chain risks, and the potential for unethical behaviour by alphabet's suppliers. But the former keyword match is far more interesting: > Our ongoing investment in new businesses, products, services, and technologies is inherently risky, and could disrupt our current operations and harm our financial condition and operating results. [...] > In addition, new and evolving products and services, including those that use artificial intelligence and machine learning, raise ethical, technological, legal, regulatory, and other challenges, which may negatively affect our brands and demand for our products and services. Because all of these new ventures are inherently risky, no assurance can be given that such strategies and offerings will be successful and will not harm our reputation, financial condition, and operating results. [goog10-k2019] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204420000008/goog10-k2019.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204420...

fatbird 6y ago
the primary motivation for funding ethical AI work is _public relations_ Exactly. The secondary motivation is the possibility of benefiting from some basic research. It's ultimately a credibility play, which makes their handling of the whole affair so mind-bogglingly dumb. There would have been no problem at all for Gebru to have presented her supposedly anti-Google paper; zero practical consequence for Google.
- loopz 6y ago
  On the contrary: The research paper is evidence of knowingly committing later wrongdoings.
  - fatbird 6y ago
    As we debate this, Google has been credibibly accused of the most basic and wide-ranging antitrust violations, and whether they actually pay a price for it, assuming the accusations are true, isn't a slam dunk. Knowingly committing ethical violations with AI seems likely pretty low on their list of concerns.
    - loopz 6y ago
      It is, but to the managers in charge of this part of the organization, they probably want to keep their options and not be cornered by bad PR.
DoreenMichele 6y ago
Without actually knowing the history, I think it's probably stupidly conceived. We seem to generally imagine that the biggest problem or challenge with AI is ethics because we frame ethics as being largely rooted in something emotional, like empathy or compassion, and not logic. The movie I, Robot explores what happens when "logic" is taken to its logical outcome by an AI. It posits a robot with feelings as the antidote to this issue. We tend to overlook the fact that humans themselves come in varying flavors with regards to degree of emotional affect, empathy, compassion, etc and how ethical they are. We haven't gotten this sorted for humanity yet and when tech goes sideways and hurts many people, we like to blame it on the tech itself fundamentally lacking "a heart" or ethics instead of blaming it on the character defects of the architects of the tech. We still haven't really figured out how to do human intelligence well and that's scary and not something we want to admit, so we project our deficiencies onto the tech and this incident is uncomfortably casting light on the fact that it's not really clear cut like that. It's really not the case that you can readily separate the people from the tech when it comes to things we label "ethics." /Hot take
- thu2111 6y ago
  I love this take but it's way too over-thought. As is the PR explanation. I'd be willing to bet some money on it being simply the result of some employees saying, "AI ethics is super important. We feel strongly there should be people working on AI ethics to make sure it's not racist or sexist". And anyone who objected was yelled at with words to the effect of, "are you saying ethics isn't important? do you not care about ethics?" until opposition was silenced and management felt it was a small sop to quiet the ranks. The right approach to this would have been to say to those advocating for it the following: "Ethics is of course tremendously important. That's why we carefully select our workforce and insist on the highest ethical standards from everyone, in their work. Ethics is not something that can be compartmentalised or delegated to a separate team. Ethics underlies all we do. If you see something you believe might be unethical, please raise it with your manager so it can be resolved company wide. Until then, return to work." Creating a dedicated ethics team was a dumb idea because it can only possibly end like this: you hire people and tell them "your job is to ensure we are ethical" and they're not going to sit back and say, you know boss, I sniffed around and everything seemed above board. Nothing for me to do here right now. I'll check back in a month. Of course they're going to see unethical stuff everywhere they look, regardless of merit. Their salary literally depends on it.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Doesn't the obvious, honest answer make the most sense? Someone in Google management doesn't want their products acting unethically - merely because it is unethical?
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  This makes a lot of sense to me in the way you have said it. The department probably exists in the first place as a result of an internal political struggle and compromise - with some decision-makers wanting Google to be genuinely more ethical, and others wanting to avoid any genuine oversight. As a result, you have this bodge solution where the department gets to exist (helped by the PR benefit as mentioned elsewhere), but not to act independently. Anyone in the department offering genuine oversight is at risk of being forced out.
  - flatus 6y ago
    throwaway2245:9 says >"The department probably exists in the first place as a result of an internal political struggle and compromise - with some decision-makers wanting Google to be genuinely more ethical, and others wanting to avoid any genuine oversight."< I certainly hope you are right. And with some foresight, the ethics department is a "Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B" now fully loaded and ready for departure. Bon Voyage! https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_...
- istjohn 6y ago
  In a world rife with deceptive marketing and advertising, PR spin, greenwashing, lobbying, astroturfing, and backroom deals, taking a corporation's actions or words at face value without considering if there might instead be an ulterior motive rooted in avarice is simply naive.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    In a world of lies, deception, half-truths, fabrications, and hypocrisy, it would be simply naive to put any faith into a random internet comment. What could your ulterior motives be for posting this?
m463 6y ago
There's one other use for it - and maybe this qualifies as PR - hiring. Super-intelligent folks are the target of google's hiring. I suspect these types of people can work anywhere, they get to pick and choose. If they can pick and choose, they will have other motivations, like being able to make a difference, and not blindly create a dystopia for everyone on the planet. So... having an Ethical AI group lets people join google, look themselves in the mirror every day, and know their employer is trying to do things right. I don't know what the reality is of an Ethical AI group. But having a good one that works might make the difference hiring exceptional people.
- p1esk 6y ago
  What makes you think those "super-intelligent" people would all agree what "do things right" means? What makes you think they would side with the Ethical AI group at Google? As an example, John von Neumann was as "super-intelligent" as they come, and yet he made it very clear he wanted to nuke Soviet Union.
  - m463 6y ago
    could it also be possible an ethical AI group might provide guidance on what to do and where the lines are? (and of course I don't know reality - for all I know enron had an ethics group too)
pietrovismara 6y ago
It's just marketing/pr. It's supposed to give them a clean enough image while they keep doing whatever they want under the hood. It won't certainly alter the status quo or influence any decision that could result in reduced profit for shareholders.
AdamHede 6y ago
A less synical conclusion would be that the longterm viability of a AI-centric company like Google benefits a lot of reasonable development in the early stages. If Google can avoid ethical hiccups it might provoke less regulation and provoke it later. All else equal, being a reasonable and ethical company IS good business. Problems arise with ethics and business collide.
- aabhay 6y ago
  This kind of liability mitigation use case is at odds with academic freedom. Your view would imply making AI part of your InfoSec / CyberOps team, not an academic research group.
marmaduke 6y ago
Beyond PR, if all the ethical AI people work for Google and none for governments or other regulatory entities, then Google has cleared the path for themselves in terms of regulation or they will be able to run circles around whatever does come up.

by shoo 6y ago

fatbird 6y ago

the primary motivation for funding ethical AI work is _public relations_ Exactly. The secondary motivation is the possibility of benefiting from some basic research. It's ultimately a credibility play, which makes their handling of the whole affair so mind-bogglingly dumb. There would have been no problem at all for Gebru to have presented her supposedly anti-Google paper; zero practical consequence for Google.

loopz 6y ago
On the contrary: The research paper is evidence of knowingly committing later wrongdoings.
- fatbird 6y ago
  As we debate this, Google has been credibibly accused of the most basic and wide-ranging antitrust violations, and whether they actually pay a price for it, assuming the accusations are true, isn't a slam dunk. Knowingly committing ethical violations with AI seems likely pretty low on their list of concerns.
  - loopz 6y ago
    It is, but to the managers in charge of this part of the organization, they probably want to keep their options and not be cornered by bad PR.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

Without actually knowing the history, I think it's probably stupidly conceived. We seem to generally imagine that the biggest problem or challenge with AI is ethics because we frame ethics as being largely rooted in something emotional, like empathy or compassion, and not logic. The movie I, Robot explores what happens when "logic" is taken to its logical outcome by an AI. It posits a robot with feelings as the antidote to this issue. We tend to overlook the fact that humans themselves come in varying flavors with regards to degree of emotional affect, empathy, compassion, etc and how ethical they are. We haven't gotten this sorted for humanity yet and when tech goes sideways and hurts many people, we like to blame it on the tech itself fundamentally lacking "a heart" or ethics instead of blaming it on the character defects of the architects of the tech. We still haven't really figured out how to do human intelligence well and that's scary and not something we want to admit, so we project our deficiencies onto the tech and this incident is uncomfortably casting light on the fact that it's not really clear cut like that. It's really not the case that you can readily separate the people from the tech when it comes to things we label "ethics." /Hot take

thu2111 6y ago
I love this take but it's way too over-thought. As is the PR explanation. I'd be willing to bet some money on it being simply the result of some employees saying, "AI ethics is super important. We feel strongly there should be people working on AI ethics to make sure it's not racist or sexist". And anyone who objected was yelled at with words to the effect of, "are you saying ethics isn't important? do you not care about ethics?" until opposition was silenced and management felt it was a small sop to quiet the ranks. The right approach to this would have been to say to those advocating for it the following: "Ethics is of course tremendously important. That's why we carefully select our workforce and insist on the highest ethical standards from everyone, in their work. Ethics is not something that can be compartmentalised or delegated to a separate team. Ethics underlies all we do. If you see something you believe might be unethical, please raise it with your manager so it can be resolved company wide. Until then, return to work." Creating a dedicated ethics team was a dumb idea because it can only possibly end like this: you hire people and tell them "your job is to ensure we are ethical" and they're not going to sit back and say, you know boss, I sniffed around and everything seemed above board. Nothing for me to do here right now. I'll check back in a month. Of course they're going to see unethical stuff everywhere they look, regardless of merit. Their salary literally depends on it.

oh_sigh 6y ago

Doesn't the obvious, honest answer make the most sense? Someone in Google management doesn't want their products acting unethically - merely because it is unethical?

throwaway2245 6y ago
This makes a lot of sense to me in the way you have said it. The department probably exists in the first place as a result of an internal political struggle and compromise - with some decision-makers wanting Google to be genuinely more ethical, and others wanting to avoid any genuine oversight. As a result, you have this bodge solution where the department gets to exist (helped by the PR benefit as mentioned elsewhere), but not to act independently. Anyone in the department offering genuine oversight is at risk of being forced out.
- flatus 6y ago
  throwaway2245:9 says >"The department probably exists in the first place as a result of an internal political struggle and compromise - with some decision-makers wanting Google to be genuinely more ethical, and others wanting to avoid any genuine oversight."< I certainly hope you are right. And with some foresight, the ethics department is a "Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B" now fully loaded and ready for departure. Bon Voyage! https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_...
istjohn 6y ago
In a world rife with deceptive marketing and advertising, PR spin, greenwashing, lobbying, astroturfing, and backroom deals, taking a corporation's actions or words at face value without considering if there might instead be an ulterior motive rooted in avarice is simply naive.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  In a world of lies, deception, half-truths, fabrications, and hypocrisy, it would be simply naive to put any faith into a random internet comment. What could your ulterior motives be for posting this?

m463 6y ago

There's one other use for it - and maybe this qualifies as PR - hiring. Super-intelligent folks are the target of google's hiring. I suspect these types of people can work anywhere, they get to pick and choose. If they can pick and choose, they will have other motivations, like being able to make a difference, and not blindly create a dystopia for everyone on the planet. So... having an Ethical AI group lets people join google, look themselves in the mirror every day, and know their employer is trying to do things right. I don't know what the reality is of an Ethical AI group. But having a good one that works might make the difference hiring exceptional people.

p1esk 6y ago
What makes you think those "super-intelligent" people would all agree what "do things right" means? What makes you think they would side with the Ethical AI group at Google? As an example, John von Neumann was as "super-intelligent" as they come, and yet he made it very clear he wanted to nuke Soviet Union.
- m463 6y ago
  could it also be possible an ethical AI group might provide guidance on what to do and where the lines are? (and of course I don't know reality - for all I know enron had an ethics group too)

pietrovismara 6y ago

It's just marketing/pr. It's supposed to give them a clean enough image while they keep doing whatever they want under the hood. It won't certainly alter the status quo or influence any decision that could result in reduced profit for shareholders.

AdamHede 6y ago

A less synical conclusion would be that the longterm viability of a AI-centric company like Google benefits a lot of reasonable development in the early stages. If Google can avoid ethical hiccups it might provoke less regulation and provoke it later. All else equal, being a reasonable and ethical company IS good business. Problems arise with ethics and business collide.

aabhay 6y ago
This kind of liability mitigation use case is at odds with academic freedom. Your view would imply making AI part of your InfoSec / CyberOps team, not an academic research group.

marmaduke 6y ago

Beyond PR, if all the ethical AI people work for Google and none for governments or other regulatory entities, then Google has cleared the path for themselves in terms of regulation or they will be able to run circles around whatever does come up.