Does that not depend on your perspective? There might not be an alignment between what Google’s executives and shareholders want out of the company, and what an ethics researcher might consider ethical behavior.

> Does that not depend on your perspective?

Well, it depends on your breadth of understanding of the issue. If you have a limited scope, it doesn't seem like a big problem. And it also assumes that we all agree on certain basic human rights. If we don't then yes, it is a matter of perspective.

Read "Weapons of Math Destruction". It discusses how existing algorithms discriminate in the following case-studies:

- courtroom sentencing (and recidivism prediction)

- mortgage and loan rate determination

- educator performance

- job applications that use 3rd party screening tools

The book looks at specific examples of where these black-box algorithms are deployed that have ruined people's lives with no accountability. The ethics concerns that are being raised were needed a decade ago, or more, but it is only getting worse with the ad-hoc deployment of this un-baked technology to almost every industry.

I have to stress again that these black-box algorithms are ALREADY IN USE and cannot be subpoenaed by courts because it is considered intellectual property.

So yes, it is urgent to crack open this technology because it is all too easily being sold without any investigation, accountability, or thought to the consequences. "Move fast and break things" doesn't work if it ruins peoples lives by landing them in jail, or pushing them into poverty.

The book demonstrates this is not a what-if strawman, but reality.

Thanks, I definitely understand the human rights implications and the importance. I mostly expect a large corporation to make decisions based on profits over ethics though, unless the former depends on the latter (through pressure from the public/PR, legislation and so on). From that perspective, I could see Google regarding an employee remarking negatively on the ethical aspects of an otherwise popular product as ”shitting on it”.

"Weapons of Math Destruction" was our textbook for CS 6603 at Georgia Tech. It was a fascinating/terrifying look into some of the systems that seem to silently impact the lives of millions in the U.S. Cannot recommend it enough.

> it is urgent to crack open this technology

Just as easy as putting the baby back in. It would be more constructive to work on ways to detect and reduce harm.

Bullshit. It is literally being made right now. Legislation can help solve this pretty quick. No audit? No sell.

To follow your analogy, it is more like, "wear a damn condom and take a sex-ed class before having an unwanted baby."

I don't understand how your conclusion follows from the graph. That data would appear to indicate the opposite: that regulation had no effect.

The graph shows that vehicle safety improved steadily throughout the entire 20th century, without any sharp discontinuities. The key line is deaths per billion VMT. That is the figure which is invariant to how much driving people do, and which thus accurately measures how safe driving as an activity is. You appear to be looking at "deaths per million people" but that figure is confounded by big changes driven by the economy, which is why the 1970s energy crisis is highlighted on the graph. All you're seeing there is economic change, not change driven by regulation.

If regulation would have actually made a difference then it'd show up in the red line, but it doesn't. Conclusion: the regulation is useless. Private companies were doing fine at improving safety and always have been. And as regulations have costs, that in turn suggests they should be scrapped (zero impact + non-zero costs = repeal).