4 ms·
Wouldn't the honourable thing be to first try to change how Google behaves and only if unsuccessful resign? Why is the assumption that employees shouldn't even
by pron 6y ago
Wouldn't the honourable thing be to first try to change how Google behaves and only if unsuccessful resign? Why is the assumption that employees shouldn't even try to influence the direction of their company? Why is doing so considered a tantrum?
- microtherion 6y ago> first try to change how Google behaves By, say, attempting to publish papers and have internal discussions about it?
- pron 6y agoI don't have all the facts here and neither, I believe, do you, and we don't know what recourses have been tried. My point is just that I find strange the view that the company is entitled to do anything as long as it's legal while employees aren't, and are expected to either leave or stay and shut up.
- microtherion 6y agoI think we're entirely in agreement on this. I would say that in all jobs, it's more honorable to first try to change the company rather than quit silently, but if your job description encompasses "ethics" or "compliance", it's pretty much a dereliction of duty to quit without even trying to change policies one finds wrong.
- throwaway316943 6y agoThere is a huge difference between skillfully navigating the internal politics and procedures of a company vs issuing demands based on flimsy evidence/feelings and threatening to take your toys and go home if you don’t get your way (and then throwing a social media tantrum when they call your bluff and accept your resignation).
- pron 6y agoSure, and maybe they misjudged their power and overplayed their hand, but why is it that the law is the only guidance for management while employees are held up to a higher standard? If management can do anything as long as it's legal, so can the workers.
- throwaway316943 6y agoA corporation is not obligated to keep you employed nor should they be outside of a legal contract. I’d prefer it stays that way because I don’t want to be compelled to work for anyone or have them be compelled to hire me. They’re two sides of the same coin.
- pron 6y agoThey are two sides of the same coin, but the law in some countries recognises that the employer has more power, and so favours the worker and makes it harder for the employer to terminate an employee without making it harder for the employee to quit.
- throwaway316943 6y agoMaking it harder to fire someone makes it harder to hire them in the first place. This hurts everyone because it reduces the number of available positions by increasing the cost of hiring. Give too much power to the employees and you wind up with corrupt unions that effectively have a cartel over entire areas of the economy. It’s just layers of red tape and misery for everyone. Getting fired isn’ta problem if you can easily get a new job. It becomes a problem when nobody wants to hire because they can never get rid of you or they have to deal with a crooked union. Having high barriers to firing people also makes the fact that you got fired a giant stain on your resume instead of a fairly normal occurrence that could be due to a no fault reason.
- pron 6y agoSuch systems are sensitive to multiple variable, and it's not true that all values except from the current ones lead to a worse result, or, at least, we have no reason to believe that's true. What we do know is that over the past several decades the US, and other Western countries, and especially in the past two, have conducted a massive redistribution of wealth away from workers.
- geodel 6y agoHuh, last time it was contractor treatment issue. Make a show of protest and then get back to desk at work. I wish these world leading AI ethics researchers show some ethical spine and at least go on strike if not resign until management come to talking table and meet their partial and full demands.