The Sad Implosion of Google's Ethical AI

The Sad Implosion of Google’s Ethical AI

The surveillance-capitalist giant fired some of its most popular researchers—and revealed its true colors in the process.



A woman walks past Google's headquarters in London, England

DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES


In December, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, fired Timnit Gebru, a celebrated artificial intelligence researcher and one of the most accomplished members of her field. Gebru, one of the few Black women in a senior position at Alphabet (where less than 3 percent of employees are Black), had been an integral member of the company’s Ethical AI team, a well-regarded, diverse group of high-achieving researchers who explored issues like racial bias in facial recognition or how “fairness” might be defined in machine-learning systems, which undergird everything from automated content moderation to resume screening. The team was considered an important component of Google’s effort to be an ethically engaged research institution challenging some of the orthodoxies of the field. Its work also contributed to several Google products, particularly in the area of machine learning, such as a tool for reducing bias in machine-learning models and (in a lighter vein) a celebrity facial-recognition app.

Now, all of that is in disarray, and the future of ethical AI research at Google is in question. Google has spent the three months since Gebru’s firing flailing to account for its behavior. In January, Axios reported that Google was investigating researcher Margaret Mitchell, who founded the Ethical AI team, for reportedly collecting information related to Gebru’s dismissal. On February 5, Mitchell expressed public concern about Gebru’s firing. Two weeks later, Mitchell was fired. (Google claimed Mitchell was let go for violating company policies.) The company conducted an investigation, refused to release the results, and promised minimal reforms. A recent Axios headline said it all: “Google tweaks diversity, research policies following inquiry.”

For critics of Google—who increasingly hail from within the company, including as part of the nascent Alphabet Workers Union—tweaks aren’t enough. They want major changes in policy and personnel that may test how far a company like Google is willing to go—or whether it can even be an incubator of ethically minded, non-commercial research. Dr. Alex Hanna, a member of the Ethical AI team who has tweeted critically about the company’s actions, recently wrote that she wasn’t doing so for sympathy or attention: “I’m doing it because I’m wanting y’all to join in to radically transform (and destroy, where necessary) these institutions.”

It’s unclear whether Google can be made into a more socially responsible actor, much less radically transformed. But progressive-minded tech workers think it’s worth trying. While exhibiting noble intentions—and often acting at great risk to their careers—they might find, in the end, that Google’s leadership doesn’t care for their reforms and that ethical technologies have no place in a market-dominating surveillance-capitalist giant. Perhaps, Google can only be destroyed.

Dr. Hanna’s call for revolutionizing Google was echoed in a post published today by Google Walkout, an organizing group that led a protest in 2018 against a $90 million payout to Andy Rubin, the Android creator who was accused of sexual harassment. In a broadside titled “The Future Must Be Ethical: #MakeAIEthical,” Google Walkout wrote on Monday that “Google has chosen to dismantle its AI ethics work, making it clear that the company will only tolerate research that supports its bottom line.” The group detailed the mistreatment of Gebru and other researchers and called for a boycott of Google by academics and job seekers. They also asked legislatures to strengthen whistleblower protections, calling them “a powerful tool for guarding against the worst abuses of the private entities which create these technologies.”


The Google Walkout post was accompanied by a report on NBC News about Google’s treatment of racial, gender, and personnel issues. NBC talked to at least 10 people who shared similar experiences: “when their complaints about how the company handled racial and gender discrimination reached human resources, they were both given the same advice: undergo mental health counseling and take medical leave.” One of the Google Walkout organizers also said that she had been demoted for her advocacy.

Those who took medical leave often found, after returning, that their positions had changed or that they had new managers. But the practice, an ersatz way of dealing with systemic issues, continued. “Going on leave is so normalized,” said a former Google employee.

Another recent report in The Washington Post detailed Google’s botched efforts to recruit from historically Black colleges. HBCUs were downgraded in Google’s recruiting system, and one of its lead recruiters said she was fired for “raising concerns about bias against HBCU students in the interview and hiring process.”

What emerges from these stories of racial and gender bias, summary firings, and indifference to employees’ mental health is that Google is pretty much like any other big company. Paying lip service to diversity initiatives, it acts aggressively to defend its own interests and ultimately sees its employees, even those with glittering public reputations, as disposable. As the authors at Google Walkout detailed, regarding the treatment of Margaret Mitchell, “During the five weeks that Dr. Mitchell was suspended, Google’s ‘global investigations’ unit intimidated remaining members of the team, some of whom were coerced into interrogations outside of work hours.”


https://newrepublic.com/article/161629/sad-implosion-googles-ethical-ai


Much more at link.

racial bias in face reconition....................say what?

jirqoadai wrote:racial bias in face reconition....................say what?

Does facial recognition work on monkeys ?

yes. thats the entire point. the rats want to be unreconizable so they wont be able to be pulled from a lineup.

Excellent article.

First off, "Ethical AI" is an oxy-moron. Or maybe rather, a misnomer. Artificial intelligence cannot exist due to its very creators; especially if they reside at Google.

This last bit was interesting.

Googlers, especially the company’s A.I. researchers, have every right to their rage. But perhaps the overriding lesson of this disaster is exactly what Dr. Hanna gestured at: Google is compromised beyond repair. When the revolution ultimately comes to Silicon Valley, it will be to destroy Alphabet and its peers, not to rescue them.

Whether they have every right to their rage or not is debatable, but, more to the point, if only that same attitude be applied to D.C., and all the smarmy politicians in it.

Speaking of which, it'd be interesting to know how many of these so-called "outraged Googlers" voted for Leftists, in the first place.