3 ms·

Again, if that were the case, there wouldn't be "tensions in google's ethical AI group." They're clearly unhappy, and so are many google employees. This clearl

Again, if that were the case, there wouldn't be "tensions in google's ethical AI group." They're clearly unhappy, and so are many google employees. This clearly isn't just one person, this clearly is bigger than that. > You'd be hard-pressed to find an ethical issue with how Edward Snowden handled the revelation of mass illegal spying on the American people. What ethical issue is there with the revelation of problems in the ethical AI division of google? You just "don't like how they act." I've heard many people say the same of individuals on street corners...not a great look.

cbozeman 6y ago
The problem, as I stated in another comment, is that these people don't really understand what their job is and that's causing this confusion. Their job is to build a bulwark for the company to guard it against negative press, and that will allow Google to create an AI that leverages all its data and currently existing infrastructure to increase shareholder value. They actually think their job is to prevent bad things from happening. Its not, and that's where the confusion is occurring. That confusion is turning into frustration, which in turn becomes anger. You'll probably say something like, "Well that's a cynical viewpoint..." Any company's "Ethics" committee/board is there to do that. Just like Human Resources is there to protect the company from you, not you from the company. The only problem is that entirely too many Googlers think they're actually employed to make the world a better place. They're employed to create shareholder value. Sometimes making the world a better place will align with increasing shareholder value. Sometimes it won't.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  And Snowden's job was to keep the US government's spy systems working. So what? Just because it's their "job" doesn't make it right or not worthy of whistleblowing. If companies are doing bad things we want whistleblowers to tell us. I just don't understand your argument - "you can do bad things if it's your job." No. It doesn't work that way.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    Yes, you can do bad things if its your job. You can't do illegal things. Difference.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      If your point was to be purposefully obtuse and present a strawman, why bother? Either way if we didn't have whistleblowers for very bad things that weren't illegal, we would never make laws to make them as such.

cbozeman 6y ago

The problem, as I stated in another comment, is that these people don't really understand what their job is and that's causing this confusion. Their job is to build a bulwark for the company to guard it against negative press, and that will allow Google to create an AI that leverages all its data and currently existing infrastructure to increase shareholder value. They actually think their job is to prevent bad things from happening. Its not, and that's where the confusion is occurring. That confusion is turning into frustration, which in turn becomes anger. You'll probably say something like, "Well that's a cynical viewpoint..." Any company's "Ethics" committee/board is there to do that. Just like Human Resources is there to protect the company from you, not you from the company. The only problem is that entirely too many Googlers think they're actually employed to make the world a better place. They're employed to create shareholder value. Sometimes making the world a better place will align with increasing shareholder value. Sometimes it won't.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
And Snowden's job was to keep the US government's spy systems working. So what? Just because it's their "job" doesn't make it right or not worthy of whistleblowing. If companies are doing bad things we want whistleblowers to tell us. I just don't understand your argument - "you can do bad things if it's your job." No. It doesn't work that way.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Yes, you can do bad things if its your job. You can't do illegal things. Difference.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    If your point was to be purposefully obtuse and present a strawman, why bother? Either way if we didn't have whistleblowers for very bad things that weren't illegal, we would never make laws to make them as such.