Google shuts down AI ethics council over public image concerns

[Greg S]

Bottom line: Personal credibility questions lead to the quick demise of Google's AI ethics oversight committee. Even though this council was a failure, it is still an important undertaking that should be reconsidered for the future.

On March 26 Google formed a council responsible for considering ethical issues surrounding artificial intelligence projects. A slew of personal attacks against members of the council is believed to be the main reason for shutting down just over a week later.

On April 4, Google gave notice that the Advanced Technology External Advisory Council would be dissolved. One member was attacked over alleged statements about gender identity, while another was accused of trying to get Google back to work on military projects.

Google's official statement on the matter reads as follows.

It’s become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can’t function as we wanted. So we’re ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We’ll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics.

Gaining external opinions on internal AI work was meant to be a check on questionable developments by Google's software employees. Instead, it turned out to be a company liability due to questions raised over who the council members were.

The quick demise began when Alessandro Acquisti, a Canegie Mellon University professor of Information Technology and Public Policy, publicly resigned. He was formerly listed as the first member of the group in documents that have since been pulled from Google's site.

I'd like to share that I've declined the invitation to the ATEAC council. While I'm devoted to research grappling with key ethical issues of fairness, rights & inclusion in AI, I don't believe this is the right forum for me to engage in this important work. I thank (1/2)

— alessandro acquisti (@ssnstudy) March 30, 2019

Perhaps the debate over the credibility of the members on the council will be put aside so that Google can form a real ethics council going forward. Just because Google can make many innovative AI technologies come to life, that does not mean they necessarily should.

Looking ahead, there will need to be some kind of monitoring of AI development to ensure that it is being used for the right purposes. Internal rules and regulations may work well for some projects, but history shows there is always that one person willing to cross the boundaries of what is socially acceptable.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/79525-google-shuts-down-ai-ethics-council-over-public.html

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Government grows bigger and bigger and bigger and no one knows why their taxes go up.

 

[wiyosaya]

Government grows bigger and bigger and bigger and no one knows why their taxes go up.

Right. Let's discount the fact that gagme's image is not the best in the eyes of many people to begin with and blame that on the government.

Gagme has done a great job of forming their image without government assistance.

Honestly, there is no mention of government in this article, so I don't see where the reference applies. In fact, this appears to have been an effort for gagme to police themselves, as it should be, though it sounds like they chose members unwisely.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Way to gloss over the people who were the actual center of the controversy:
Kay Coles James and William Joseph Burns.

I'm betting the only reason Google included these two in their ethics board was as poison pills. They knew either it would cause a controversy or the disagreements would be so large that the board wouldn't be able to function - either way, Google gets and excuse to shut it down, and it worked.

 

[wiyosaya]

Way to gloss over the people who were the actual center of the controversy:
Kay Coles James and William Joseph Burns.

I'm betting the only reason Google included these two in their ethics board was as poison pills. They knew either it would cause a controversy or the disagreements would be so large that the board wouldn't be able to function - either way, Google gets and excuse to shut it down, and it worked.

It would not surprise me coming from gagme.

However, those at the top have been known, from time-to-time, to act with as much common sense as a moth attracted to a flame. Reality is a world often unknown to those of that ilk.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Way to gloss over the people who were the actual center of the controversy:
Kay Coles James and William Joseph Burns.

I'm betting the only reason Google included these two in their ethics board was as poison pills. They knew either it would cause a controversy or the disagreements would be so large that the board wouldn't be able to function - either way, Google gets and excuse to shut it down, and it worked.

Or somebody at google isnt cucked by SJW groupthink, and made an ethics board with more then just left leaning dangerhairs.

 

[Uncle Al]

What concerns me most is that so many people, probably considered to be our best thinkers, are incapable to realizing the size and weight of that mission .... and to put their personal feelings and self promoting agenda's aside and just work on the project. It's still an excellent idea, but next time around they need to be much more selective about who staffs the board ......

 

[psycros]

What concerns me most is that so many people, probably considered to be our best thinkers, are incapable to realizing the size and weight of that mission .... and to put their personal feelings and self promoting agenda's aside and just work on the project. It's still an excellent idea, but next time around they need to be much more selective about who staffs the board ......

Google was stupid to give in to facists. Now they'll b

Way to gloss over the people who were the actual center of the controversy:
Kay Coles James and William Joseph Burns.

I'm betting the only reason Google included these two in their ethics board was as poison pills. They knew either it would cause a controversy or the disagreements would be so large that the board wouldn't be able to function - either way, Google gets and excuse to shut it down, and it worked.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. They have no interest in having any ethical guidance for how they abuse AI in the future..you need only look at what they've already created. They knew full well the fascists would come running to demand that a conservative not be given a seat at any table. As for Mr. Burns I have no idea why he would be attacked - by all accounts he was liked by just about everyone, including Obama.