News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by js8 on Thursday December 17, 2020 @10:13AM (#25456260)
> Why should they employ anyone who criticizes them that way in public? [..] If you ran the company, or the department, or owned your own firm where employees aired your dirty laundry like this, why should you be expected to keep them on?

Because owning a company doesn't necessarily mean owning people working for it.

Ask yourself the same question about the government, why should your government be expected to keep you as citizen if you criticize their dirty laundry in public.

Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by tines on Thursday December 17, 2020 @10:29AM (#25456414)
Since when does firing people constitute ownership?

I (partially) own the government (in theory, if it's a democracy). I don't own the company that I work for.

Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by js8 on Thursday December 17, 2020 @10:39AM (#25456514)
Yeah, but you're making a legal, not moral, argument. I argue that we often consider it unethical for government to silence its citizens, regardless of the law governing that country. Why we accept this in private companies? Should that be the nature of the ownership and why?
Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by tines on Thursday December 17, 2020 @11:17AM (#25456929)
I was only addressing your use of the idea of "ownership," not the question of whether private parties silencing people is good.
Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by themaninthedark on Thursday December 17, 2020 @01:11PM (#25458355)
Because Companies and Governments are different entities?

I can easily choose which company I want to work for, switching countries is something much harder.

A government that does not like what I say can do all sorts of horrible things, jail me, confiscate property and event kill me. Companies generally do not have that power.

Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by lawnchair_larry on Thursday December 17, 2020 @09:34PM (#25463151)
I think your analogy is 180 degrees out of phase. The obvious difference is that the government works for us, and our CEO doesn’t. That’s why they agreed to part with a mutually agreeable sum of their cash - something they do not have to do. If one party fails in their obligations to make this transaction mutually beneficial, the rational counterparty will sever the relationship.

And yes, we fire the government all the time. We pay them, and if we don’t like their performance, they’re out. If they start publicly trashing us, they’re out even faster. This is why mayors have to appear meek and apologetic, instead of calling the voters a bunch of fools. Like when half of the population felt like Hillary called them a basket of deplorables, for example. Not many want to hire that person.

Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by jgwil2 on Friday December 18, 2020 @12:16PM (#25469318)
Ah, way to sneak some Hillary-bashing into a completely unrelated discussion. Friendly reminder that three million more people wanted to hire her than the other guy.
Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by lawnchair_larry on Friday December 18, 2020 @12:31PM (#25469538)
If your takeaway from that comment was Hillary bashing, you missed the point.
Re:Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it send... by jgwil2 on Friday December 18, 2020 @12:47PM (#25469742)
You undermined your own point because you couldn't help but bring up a partisan political point from five years ago completely unnecessarily.