Google and Ethics: Shaken and Stirred Up
June 17, 2021
Despite recent controversies, Vox Recode reports, “Google Says it’s Committed to Ethical AI Research. Its Ethical AI Team Isn’t So Sure.” In fact, it sounds like there is a lot of uncertainty for the department whose immediate leaders have not been replaced since they were ousted and who reportedly receive little guidance or information from the higher-ups. Reporter Shirin Ghaffary writes:
“Some current members of Google’s tightly knit ethical AI group told Recode the reality is different from the one Google executives are publicly presenting. The 10-person group, which studies how artificial intelligence impacts society, is a subdivision of Google’s broader new responsible AI organization. They say the team has been in a state of limbo for months, and that they have serious doubts company leaders can rebuild credibility in the academic community — or that they will listen to the group’s ideas. Google has yet to hire replacements for the two former leaders of the team. Many members convene daily in a private messaging group to support each other and discuss leadership, manage themselves on an ad-hoc basis, and seek guidance from their former bosses. Some are considering leaving to work at other tech companies or to return to academia, and say their colleagues are thinking of doing the same.”
See the article for more of the frustrations facing Google’s remaining AI ethics researchers. The loss of these workers would not be good for the company, which relies on the department to lend a veneer of responsibility to its algorithmic initiatives. Right now, though, Google seems more interested in plowing ahead with its projects than in taking its own researchers, or their work, seriously. Its reputation in the academic community has tanked, we are told. A petition signed by thousands of computer science instructors and researchers called Gebru’s firing “unprecedented research censorship,” a prominent researcher and diversity activists are rejecting Google funding, a Google-run workshop was boycotted by prospective speakers, and the AI ethics research conference FAccT suspended the company’s membership. Meanwhile, Ghaffary reports, at least four employees have resigned and given Gebru’s treatment as the reason. Other concerned employees are taking the opposite approach, staying on in the hope they can make a difference. As one unnamed researcher states:
“Google is so powerful and has so much opportunity. It’s working on so much cutting-edge AI research. It feels irresponsible for no one who cares about ethics to be here.”
We agree, but there is only so much mid-level employees can do. When will Google executives begin to care about developing AI programs conscientiously? When regulators somehow make it more expensive to ignore ethics concerns than to embrace them, we suspect. We will not hold our breath.
Cynthia Murrell, June 17, 2021
A Google Survey: The Cloud Has Headroom
June 17, 2021
Google sponsored a study. You can read it here. There’s a summary of the report in “Manufacturers Allocate One Third of Overall IT Spend to AI, Survey Shows.”
First, the methodology is presented on the final page of the report. Here’s a snippet:
The survey was conducted online by The Harris Poll on behalf of Google Cloud, from October 15 to November 4, 2020, among 1,154 senior manufacturing executives in France (n=150), Germany (n=200), Italy (n=154), Japan (n=150), South Korea (n=150), the UK (n=150), and the U.S. (n=200) who are employed full-time at a company with more than 500 employees, and who work in the manufacturing industry with a title of director level or higher. The data in each country was weighted by number of employees to bring them into line with actual company size proportions in the population. A global post-weight was applied to ensure equal weight of each country in the global total.
Google apparently wants to make data a singular noun. That’s Googley. Also, there are two references to weighting; however, there are no data for how the weighting factors were calculated nor why the weighting factors were need for what boils down to a set of countries representing the developed world. I did not spot any information about the actual selection process; for example, mailing out a request to a larger set and then taking those who self select is a practice I have encountered in the past. Was that the method in use here? How much back and forth was there between the Harris unit and the Google managers prior to the crafting of the final report? Does this happen? Sure, those who pay want a flash report and then want to “talk about” the data. Is it possible weighting factors were used to make the numbers flow? I don’t know. The study was conducted in the depths of the Covid crisis. Was that a factor? Were those in the sample producing revenue from their AI infused investments? Sorry, no data available.
What were the findings?
Surprise, surprise. Artificial intelligence is a hot button in the manufacturing sector. Those who are into smart software are spending a hefty chunk of their “spend” budget for it. If that AI is delivered from the cloud, then bingo, the headroom for growth is darned good.
The bad news is that two thirds of those in the sample are into AI already. The big tech sharks will be swarming to upsell those early adopters and compete ferociously for the remaining one third who have yet to get the message that AI is a big deal.
Guess what countries are leaders in AI. If you said China, wrong. Go for Italy and Germany. The US was in the middle of the pack. The laggards were Japan and Korea. And China? Hey, sorry, I did not see those data in the report. My bad.
Interesting stuff in these sponsored research projects with unexplained weightings which line up with what the Google says it is doing really well.
Stephen E Arnold, June 17, 2021
Are 15 Square Feet Enough? A Question for the Google
June 15, 2021
I flipped through the dead tree edition of the outstanding sun-like Wall Street Journal this morning (June 15, 2021). And what did I find inside the edition which sometimes makes its way to Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky? The answer was a four page ad in the Murdoch infused Wall Street Journal. Each page is about 23 inches by 24 inches. That works out to 552 square inches (give or take a few due to variances in trim sizes) per page. With four pages, the total is more than 2,208 square inches of dead tree space or larger than the vinyl floor protector under my discount store office chair and that of one of my assistant’s floor protectors. Which is better vinyl floor protectors or dead tree paper? I am on the fence.
Above is a thumbnail of the four page Google ad in the June 15, 2021, Wall Street Journal.
What’s the message in the ad? At first glance, the ad is pitching a free Google service. Some people perceive Google free services as having a modest cost. Here in Harrod’s Creek, we love the freebies from the Google. In this particular case, Google is pitching this message:
If you want to show the world how it’s done, you have to change the way you do things.
Change is hard, and it depends on whether the change is motivated internally like the good old but out of fashion notion of self improvement, gumption, and Go West, young man! Or whether the change is imposed on one; for example, Rupert Murdoch had constraints on unauthorized telephone tapping imposed on his otherwise outstanding organization. There is also an Orwellian type change which can be more difficult for those lacking critical thinking skills to identify. A good example of this is assertions made under oath in the US Congress that certain high technology companies will do better. The companies then keep on keepin’ on as some in Harrod’s Creek say.
The interior two pages convey this message:
Say hello to Google Workspace.
The text explains that Google Workspace is pretty much like Salesforce Slack, Microsoft Teams, and the ever wonderful and avant garde Cisco Webex service, the somewhat popular Zoom, among others. The most interesting passage in the advertisement is the explanation of “how we do it here too”:
All 100K+ Google employees – from engineering, to marketing, to the PhDs in the quantum lab—relay on Google Workspace every day. Our scientists leave comments in research doss, and the security team keeps our inboxes clear of spam and viruses. Google’s entire business is riding on it, just like yours. Because no matter the task at hand, when your customers are depending on your. Google Workspace is how it’s done.
What came to mind was “how it’s done” in staff management. Dare I mention Dr. Timnit Gebru? No, I don’t dare. What about the subtle management vibes at DeepMind. Nope, I know zero about that too. What about … Nope, no more of this management thinking. Life’s too short. (I wonder if critiques of Dr. Gebru’s AI ethics paper were handled within this Workspace thing?)
The final page lists alleged customers (users) of Google Workspace. These include Grandma’s, Operation BBQ Relief, and Ms.. Kim’s class, among others.
Some observations are warranted by this lavish presentation of the Google Workspace message in the dead tree edition of a traditional newspaper nestled within the woke empire of News Corp. Herewith:
- I find it amusing to think that the world’s largest online advertising outfit is pitching its Workspace product in a medium which is centuries old, non digital, and mostly reporting that water which has passed under the bridge over information
- I would like to see the ad reach data and conversion estimate for pulling new customers based on this rather impressive expanse of newspaper. My hunch is that the Google wanted to send a message, probably to Microsoft. Why not email the outstanding leader working hard to eliminate cyber security risks?
- The organizations mentioned as customers (users) are interesting. Links to case examples of what’s shaking at Grandma’s or Ms. Kim’s class would be fascinating. The wonky little icons in the ad are interesting but “yinka” was a bit of a puzzle to me.
Net net: Is Google changing or does Google want others to change from Microsoft Teams to Workspace? My hunch is that Google is assuming that the Greek god Koalemos will make their endeavor a home run.
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2021
Post Shake Up, DeepMind Explains It Has the Secret AI Sauce
June 15, 2021
Do you remember the power struggle between the posh DeepMinders and the Mountain View crowd? No. Oh, well, no problem. Here’s the short version: Mountain View triumphed. Is that the Mountain View unit which wrestled with ethical AI? Answer: Yep, so what? Mountain View won. DeepMind lost.
I think I have spotted the first official statement which suggests the direction the post-skirmish Google AI jabber will go. Sure, I may be wrong, but let’s take a look at what’s revealed in “DeepMind Researchers Say Reinforcement Learning Is the Key to Cracking General AI.” [If you want to get some info about reinforcement learning, try this link. For a run down of other AI “religions”, check out this link. ]
Now let’s look at the write up “DeepMind Researchers Say…” passage:
In a new paper submitted to the peer-reviewed Artificial Intelligence journal, scientists at UK-based AI lab DeepMind argue that intelligence and its associated abilities will emerge not from formulating and solving complicated problems but by sticking to a simple but powerful principle: reward maximization.
I ask, “But what if other methods are useful?” The response I hypothesize, “Well, we’re the DeepMind Google.”
There is this statement quoted in the “DeepMind Researchers Say” article:
“Reinforcement learning assumes that the agent has a finite set of potential actions. A reward signal and value function have been specified. In other words, the problem of general intelligence is precisely to contribute those things that reinforcement learning requires as a pre-requisite,” Roitblat said. “So, if machine learning can all be reduced to some form of optimization to maximize some evaluative measure, then it must be true that reinforcement learning is relevant, but it is not very explanatory.”
I have put in bold face and red the operative word in this quasi quantum supremacy type statement from the online ad agency: “If.”
Yep, if, the close cousin of would, coulda, shoulda, and “I apologize.”
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2021
Great Moments in PR: Google and France June 2021
June 14, 2021
I am not sure what percentage of Alphabet Google’s annual revenue $268 million represents. My old handheld calculator balks at lots of numbers. I am more of a 00 or 000 kind of old timer. France believes that this figure is fair and appropriate for alleged missteps by the mom and pop online ad company.
I found the article “Google to Improve Ad Practices after Being Slapped with $268 Million Fine” interesting. In fact, I circled in True Blue this passage:
Following the results of this investigation, Google has decided to reach a settlement with the French antitrust authority. As a part of this settlement, the tech giant will have to improve its ad services to offer better interoperability with other platforms, and will also pay a $268 million fine.
Yep, the do better assurance. What was the alleged saying bandied about when Messrs. Brin and Page were roller blading around the Mountain View offices? I think it was this one:
It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.
A slight edit yields:
It’s easier to pay the find than make specific commitments.
Stephen E Arnold, June 14, 2021
More Google Management Methodology in Action: Speak Up and Find Your Future Elsewhere
June 11, 2021
“Worker Fired for Questioning Woke Training” presents information that Taras Kobernyk (now a Xoogler) was fired for expressing his opinion about specialized training. The “training” was for equity training. The former employee of the online ad company was identified as an individual who was not Googley. The Fox News segment aired on Wednesday, June 9, 2021 and was online at this link as of 10 am on June 11, 2021. The story was recycled at “Tucker Carlson Interviews Former Google Employee Who Was Fired after Questioning Woke Training Programs.” Here’s a quote from that write up:
“I was told that certain sections of the document were questioning experiences with people of color or criticizing fellow employees, or even that I was using the word “genetics” in the racial context.”
Some pundit once said, “Any publicity is good publicity.” Okay. Who would have thought that a large company’s human resources’ management decisions would carry another Timnit Gebru placard? Dare I suggest a somewhat sophomoric approach may be evident in these personnel moves? Yes, high school science club DNA traces are observable in this case example if it is indeed true.
Stephen E Arnold, June 11, 2021
Western Union And Wise Boost Google Pay
June 11, 2021
Western Union and Wise are trusted money wiring services and the companies have teamed with Google Pay. Tech Moran explores the new business team up in the story, “Google Pay Partners With Western Union And Wise To Launch An International Money Transfer Service.”
Wise and Western Union are now integrated parts of Google Pay. Google Pay is only available in the US. Customers can now transfer money through the Google Pay app to Singapore and India. Using Wise’s international services, Google Pay will not be available to eighty countries and Western Union connects the app to two hundred countries by the end of 2021.
In order to send money to India or Singapore, the Google Pay app will give customers the option to send money via Western Union or Wise. Google Pay selected Singapore and India as test countries due to the amount of remittance payments sent there from the US senders.
COVID increased the amount of money sent through online payments, but demands for remittance services have decreased since 2019:
“The Covid 19 pandemic has led to an increase in online payments though generally there is a drop in overall remittances flows as the money migrants sent has declined up to 14 percent from 2019.This is occasioned by worsening economic conditions and employment levels in migrant-hosting countries as revealed by the World Bank.”
Remittance services have an advantage over online payments in that they do not require an online account to receive or send money. Are there implications for enforcement officials working in the cyber crime space? Oh, some.
Whitney Grace, June 11, 2021
Google Wants to Do Better: Read These Two Articles for Context
June 10, 2021
You will need to read these two articles before you scan my observations.
The first write up is “How an Ex Googler Turned Artist Hacked Her Work to the Top of Search Results.” The is a case example of considerable importance, at least to me and my research team. The methods of word use designed to bond to Google’s internal receptors is the secret sauce of search engine optimization experts. But here is a Xoogler manipulating Google’s clueless methods.
The second article is “Google Seeks to Break Vicious Cycle of Online Slander.” Ignore the self praise of the Gray Lady. The main point is that Google is going to take action to deal with the way in which its exemplary smart software handles “slander.” The main point is that Google has been converted from do gooder to the digital equivalent of Hakan Ayik, the individual the Australian Federal Police converted into the ultimate insider. The similarity is important at least to me.
Don’t agree with my interpretation? No problem. Nevertheless, I will offer my observations:
First, after 20 years of obfuscation, it is clear that the fragility and exploitability of Google’s smart software is known to the author of “How an Ex Googler Turned Artist Hacked…”. Therefore, the knowledge of Google’s willful blind spots is not secret to about 100,000 full time equivalent Googlers.
Second, Google – instead of taking direct, immediate action – once again is doing the “ask forgiveness” thing with words of assurance. Actions speak louder than words. Maybe this time?
Third, neither of the referenced articles speaks bluntly and clearly about the danger mishandling of meaning poses. Forget big, glittery issues like ethics or democracy. Think manipulation and becloudization.
Stephen E Arnold, June 10, 2021
Does YouTube for Kids Need a Pause Button?
June 10, 2021
YouTube Kids is a child-friendly version of the video streaming platform. Google created YouTube Kids so younger viewers were only exposed to age appropriate content. While YouTube Kids is popular with its intended audiences, parents, child safety advocates, and Congressmen and women dislike its autoplay feature. Vox reports on the issue in “YouTube’s Kids App Has a Rabbit Hole Problem.”
The problem with Youtube Kids’ autoplay feature is that it never stops. When one video ends another begins in an endless loop. This would not be a problem if there was a way to disable autoplay, but that is not an option. Child safety advocates and parents are worried that a constant video stream teaches kids bad video consumption habits and tricks them into making certain choices.
Parents are also upset with the app for several other reasons. The inability to disable autoplay does not allow them to control their kids’ viewing habits. YouTube Kids does have a timer feature, but it clocks out at an hour and must be reset each time. Parents can also limit the app to certain videos or channels and they can disable the search function.
The biggest objections to the autoplay feature is the app’s algorithm that plays recommended videos. The problem with the algorithm is that it does return inappropriate videos about dieting, suicide, mean pranks, mature cartoons, and suicide ideation.
YouTube apparently wants to protect kids and work with parents, but they are slow to respond:
“For now, YouTube has not said whether YouTube Kids will have autoplay on or off by default. It’s also unclear how easy it will be to turn off autoplay. Still, the autoplay in YouTube Kids is a reminder that design choices made by tech platforms do have an impact on how parents and children interact with technology, and where regulators might step in.”
Google, YouTube’s parent company, does want to protect children, because if they do not it affects their profit margin.
Whitney Grace, June 10, 2021
Google: Do What We Say, Ignore What We Do, Just Heel!
June 8, 2021
If this Reddit diagram is on the money, we have a great example of how Google management goes about rule making. The post is called “Google Can’t Pass Its Own Page Speed Test.” The post was online on June 5, 2021, but when Beyond Search posts this short item, that Reddit post may be tough to find. Why? Oh, because.
- There are three grades Dearest Google automatically assigns to those who put content online. There are people who get green badges (just like in middle school). There are people who warrant yellow badges (no, I won’t mention a certain shop selling cloth patches in the shape of pentagons with pointy things), and red badges (red, like the scarlet letter, and you know what that meant in Puritan New England a relatively short time ago).
Notice that these Google sites get the red badge of high school science club mismanagement recognition:
- Google Translate
- Google’s site for its loyal and worshipful developers
- Google’s online store where you can buy tchotchkes
- The Google Cloud which has dreams of crushing the competitors like Amazon and Microsoft into non-coherent photons
- Google Maps which I personally find almost impossible to use due to the effort to convert a map into so much more than a representation of a territory. Perhaps a Google Map is not the territory? Could it be a vessel for advertising?
There are three Google services which get the yellow badge. I find the yellow badge thing very troubling. Here these are:
- YouTube, an outstanding collection of content recommended by a super duper piece of software and a giant hamper for online advertising of Grammarly, chicken sandwiches, insurance, and so much more for the consumers of the world
- Google Trends. This is a service which reveals teeny tiny slice of the continent of data it seems the Alphabet Google thing possesses
- The Google blog. That is a font of wisdom.
Observations:
- Like Google’s other mandates, it appears that those inside the company responsible for Google’s public face either don’t know the guidelines or simply don’t care.
- Like AMP, this is an idea designed to help out Google. Making everyone go faster reduces costs for the Google. Who wants to help Google reduce costs? I sure do.
- Google’s high school science club management methods continue to demonstrate their excellence.
What happens if a non Google Web site doesn’t go fast? You thought you got traffic from Google like the good old days, perhaps rethink that assumption?
Stephen E Arnold, June 8, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
