7 ms·

According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external

According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties". https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png

5600k 6y ago
Would anyone suspect that an AI set her up? One could be fully capable of that. This whole thing may be ironic- in more than one sense. I’m kidding of course... or am I?
- asimovfan 6y ago
  It is disappointing that this message is being downvoted.
  - doctor_eval 6y ago
    Yeah, it was my first thought! Very Roko's basilisk. Especially if it’s being downvoted by the AI.
  - newsbinator 6y ago
    If an AI set her up, why would it let us discuss it here?
    - 5600k 6y ago
      If it were superintelligent and hyperaware, how would you question it?
      - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
        ...are you the AI?
        i_am_the_ai 6y ago
        No?
        Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
        ...sounds like something an AI would say...
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      Perhaps it's not as strong outside of the Google Campus? It could probably run a large botnet, but maybe it would want to fly under the radar with each account?
- jariel 6y ago
  I don't see how anyone 'set up' anyone. Paradoxically, AI may have been part of the tech used to flag her, but it's all mundane at this point. Kind of implying that AI is just 'tech' and there's no material reason to separate AI from everything else from an ethical perspective. Google's main Search Engine should be the biggest point of controversy if there is one - the things they chose to filter, or not, or highlight, their ranking, etc. - a lot of that is algorithmic and derived from human input and it has massive impact. But there's no cool moniker like 'AI' with Hollywood movies about the tech to get people paying attention.
pseudalopex 6y ago
The image doesn't say anything about a script or Gebru. "multiple external accounts" could mean her own and her lawyer's.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  This Axios article has the claim from an unnamed source.[1] [1] https://www.axios.com/scoop-google-is-investigating-the-actions-of-another-top-ai-ethicist-50030739-ea3d-4ea2-b452-c228b4fc9773.html https://www.axios.com/scoop-google-is-investigating-the-acti...
- simonh 6y ago
  Neither of which is acceptable. If she or her lawyers want their own copies of emails outside the company, they can apply to a court.
  - ajb 6y ago
    So,if you are being abused by your boss via email, you can't give the evidence to a lawyer, but first have to apply for a court order without showing any evidence in order to get the evidence? I think this is unlikely to be the law, and if it is, it shouldn't be.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Different jurisdictions have different rules. But legal counsel is a common exception to NDAs.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      IANAL, but that's what "discovery" is for.
      - Zuider 6y ago
        But without solid evidence of some sort, one cannot establish that there is a case fit to be heard in court, and so there will be no discovery. It is a bootstrapping problem.
bg24 6y ago
An email activity anomaly detection will flag it immediately. That might have triggered the investigation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I mean multiple external parties could mean two parties and technically not be a lie. It could also be multiple external services that she has an account at and still not technically be a lie. I guess someone could not be specifying more clearly how nefarious the goings on because of legal reasons, but it could also be that they're not specifying more clearly because then everyone would make the pffft noise and point and laugh. I guess I just don't trust unclear language that emanate from within big corporations somewhere.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I think it's the "external" part of the phrase that's a problem, not the "multiple". She could've sent it to one external party and that still may have been a fire-able offense. (Of course, this depends on what she was sending, if it was really protected information, and who she was sending it to. If she was sending evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Google to her lawyer or a government official, then I don't know).
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    An external party could be her own email account at a different service. Probably because she was worried that something exactly like this would happen.
    - katbyte 6y ago
      that's still a breach of policy and of questionable legality? your company email inbox is the companies not your own.
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      I don't have Google experience, but you can be summarily fired for forwarding to a personal address at many companies with a security or compliance policy. You would have known this in advance, whether through training, a manual, or warnings inside the email client. I remember an all hands where someone forwarded a relatively innocuous email to her Yahoo, once, and we all received a big reminder.

5600k 6y ago

Would anyone suspect that an AI set her up? One could be fully capable of that. This whole thing may be ironic- in more than one sense. I’m kidding of course... or am I?

asimovfan 6y ago
It is disappointing that this message is being downvoted.
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  Yeah, it was my first thought! Very Roko's basilisk. Especially if it’s being downvoted by the AI.
- newsbinator 6y ago
  If an AI set her up, why would it let us discuss it here?
  - 5600k 6y ago
    If it were superintelligent and hyperaware, how would you question it?
    - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
      ...are you the AI?
      - i_am_the_ai 6y ago
        No?
        Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
        ...sounds like something an AI would say...
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    Perhaps it's not as strong outside of the Google Campus? It could probably run a large botnet, but maybe it would want to fly under the radar with each account?
jariel 6y ago
I don't see how anyone 'set up' anyone. Paradoxically, AI may have been part of the tech used to flag her, but it's all mundane at this point. Kind of implying that AI is just 'tech' and there's no material reason to separate AI from everything else from an ethical perspective. Google's main Search Engine should be the biggest point of controversy if there is one - the things they chose to filter, or not, or highlight, their ranking, etc. - a lot of that is algorithmic and derived from human input and it has massive impact. But there's no cool moniker like 'AI' with Hollywood movies about the tech to get people paying attention.

pseudalopex 6y ago

The image doesn't say anything about a script or Gebru. "multiple external accounts" could mean her own and her lawyer's.

pseudalopex 6y ago
This Axios article has the claim from an unnamed source.[1] [1] https://www.axios.com/scoop-google-is-investigating-the-actions-of-another-top-ai-ethicist-50030739-ea3d-4ea2-b452-c228b4fc9773.html https://www.axios.com/scoop-google-is-investigating-the-acti...
simonh 6y ago
Neither of which is acceptable. If she or her lawyers want their own copies of emails outside the company, they can apply to a court.
- ajb 6y ago
  So,if you are being abused by your boss via email, you can't give the evidence to a lawyer, but first have to apply for a court order without showing any evidence in order to get the evidence? I think this is unlikely to be the law, and if it is, it shouldn't be.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Different jurisdictions have different rules. But legal counsel is a common exception to NDAs.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    IANAL, but that's what "discovery" is for.
    - Zuider 6y ago
      But without solid evidence of some sort, one cannot establish that there is a case fit to be heard in court, and so there will be no discovery. It is a bootstrapping problem.

bg24 6y ago

An email activity anomaly detection will flag it immediately. That might have triggered the investigation.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I mean multiple external parties could mean two parties and technically not be a lie. It could also be multiple external services that she has an account at and still not technically be a lie. I guess someone could not be specifying more clearly how nefarious the goings on because of legal reasons, but it could also be that they're not specifying more clearly because then everyone would make the pffft noise and point and laugh. I guess I just don't trust unclear language that emanate from within big corporations somewhere.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I think it's the "external" part of the phrase that's a problem, not the "multiple". She could've sent it to one external party and that still may have been a fire-able offense. (Of course, this depends on what she was sending, if it was really protected information, and who she was sending it to. If she was sending evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Google to her lawyer or a government official, then I don't know).
- Aeolun 6y ago
  An external party could be her own email account at a different service. Probably because she was worried that something exactly like this would happen.
  - katbyte 6y ago
    that's still a breach of policy and of questionable legality? your company email inbox is the companies not your own.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    I don't have Google experience, but you can be summarily fired for forwarding to a personal address at many companies with a security or compliance policy. You would have known this in advance, whether through training, a manual, or warnings inside the email client. I remember an all hands where someone forwarded a relatively innocuous email to her Yahoo, once, and we all received a big reminder.