So what now? No ethics board at all and it just proceeds without ethics oversight?
Isn’t that state worse than having someone you disagree with on some principles but in theory provide constructive criticism where the politics don’t intersect?
I mean, making some jobs obsolete or making decisions on recidivism etc I think are distinct from what a panelist thinks about an unrelated issue.
Moreover this person didn’t provide s majority view. Presumably the other panelists would have good arguments against her controversial views.
It seems to me that the ethics board, by including a number of mainstream-politics policy folks (not just James), was an effort to look responsible in the eyes of mainstream politicians and political movements who might seek to regulate them more than an effort to actually seek ethical counsel. Other people have addressed how it seems unlikely that the board would have meaningful understanding of Google's work in the limited schedules they had and be unable to meaningfully apply oversight and produce guidance. If the whole thing was a sham, it is definitely better not to have a sham (an "ethics council" rooted in unethical behavior) than to have one.
And even if it weren't deliberately deceptive, not having an ethics council that wasn't going to work and looking publicly like you have no oversight is still likely better than having one taking up the role of one and causing competitive inhibition (the way certain drugs can physically take the place of biological molecules and prevent them from functioning).
Oh, I think the problem might just be a little bit more complicated than that.
In a sense (and this is a gross exaguration, but just to frame the concept), an ethics panel formed by Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer and David Berkowicz would not be an improvement over nothing at all. It would be a step backwards, and the world would be worse for tolerating it.
This is not to say that any of the people involved in this particular episode are abominable monsters, far from it, but to drive home the point, whether you pick the right people or the best people really matters, and it does make a difference.
In some respects, I'm not sure I'd want individuals with a vested interest and enthusiasm for AI to play watchdog over appropriate, responsible behavior.
In a way, an ethics board in something of a no fun zone. It would likely make more sense to invite members from areas that might run counter to industry wonks, in ways that AI experts might prove tone deaf to self policing concerns. Does that make sense?
We don't want to stifle the best parts of progress, but an ethics board shouldn't be made of people inclined to rubber stamp Skynet, because they'd tend toward seeing AI as progress by default.
I feel like an extreme view would be to say any ethics board is better than no ethics board.
If you disagree with that statement then I think the question is: Was this ethics board bad enough that it was worse than no ethics board?
And, I trust that you're being charitable enough to believe that the people that wanted the board removed asked the same, very basic, ethical question.
On the other hand - it might be easier to think they didn't ask or think about that question and discard their position based on what could frankly be called a strawman.
Guidance on why something pursued is unethical from a first principles perspective. Obviously Google can ignore those objections. However having a counterbalance is important (as any able administration should on its foreign policy advisors body, for example, though a president can and does ignore advice but not all advice)
Isn’t that state worse than having someone you disagree with on some principles but in theory provide constructive criticism where the politics don’t intersect?
I mean, making some jobs obsolete or making decisions on recidivism etc I think are distinct from what a panelist thinks about an unrelated issue.
Moreover this person didn’t provide s majority view. Presumably the other panelists would have good arguments against her controversial views.