I would trust an ai ethicist with a PhD in philosophy or ethics of their ideas were coherent. Tech backgrounds are not necessarily required.
I agree, it doesn't require technical AI skills but I would expect a person in this position to have SOMETHING relevant in their background that they could point to as a qualifier.
Honestly, I read the article and it left me feeling quite sympathetic to this lady. It seemed like another clear cut case of political correctness run amok. Then I looked up her bio online and found she has a Bachelors degree in Education from the Hampton Institute and her entire career has consisted of a series of political appointments the highlights of which include Director of the Office of Personnel Management (despite not having any HR related background) and the Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Services (despite not having any public health background). She has neither training nor experience in either AI or Ethics. Politics aside, she was not even remotely qualified to be on an AI Ethics Board for Google.
Many successful teams in history included members who were not technically skilled, but had an implementable vision. The gap in knowledge bridgeable, and the alternative is more "Facebook is involuntarily committing users to an experiment in what makes people sad" ethical errors.
I mean, human drivers' education doesn't cover choosing who to kill in unavoidable crashes. Isn't that because we believe crashes where the driver can't avoid the crash, but can choose who to kill, are so rare as to be negligible?
IMHO much more realistic and pressing AI ethics questions surround e.g. neural networks for setting insurance prices, and whether they can be shown not to discriminate against protected groups.
I'd look at a few other reasons:
- We don't have "driving ethics" classes at all. Human driving education covers how to drive. "AI ethics" might cover many things, but I don't think "how to drive" is on that list. That topic falls under "AI", not "AI ethics".
- The usual example you hear about is an AI driver choosing whether to kill a pedestrian or the driver. There is no point in having a "driving ethics for humans" class which teaches that it is your moral duty to kill yourself in order to avoid killing a pedestrian. No one would pay attention to that, and people would rightly attack the class itself as being a moral abomination.
This example actually makes me more sympathetic to the traditional view that (e.g. for Catholics) suicide is a mortal sin, or (for legalists) suicide should be illegal. This has perverse consequences, like assuring the grieving family that at least their loved one is burning in hell, or subjecting failed suicides to legal penalties. But as a cultural practice, it immunizes everyone against those who would tell them to kill themselves.
The main focus of "AI ethics" needs to be on model bias and how to counter it through transparency and governance. More and more decisions, from mortgage applications to job applications are being automated based on the output of some machine learning model. The person being "scored" has no insight into how they were scored, often has no recourse to appeal the decision, and in many cases isn't even aware that they were scored by a model in the first place. THIS is what AI Ethics needs to focus on, not navel gazing about who self-driving cars should choose to kill or how to implement kill switches for runaway robots.
To anyone who is an expert, this is a profoundly uninteresting question. Literally no modern system is programmed this way, and many people would argue that telling a system who to hit is, itself, unethical.
A more interesting question might be if our models will hit certain groups of people more often, without anyone having explicitly asked them to.
Archive link to the short bios, since Google seems to have taken the document down: https://web.archive.org/web/20190331195013/https://ai.google...
Tech people can design the tech. But here we are talking about the impact and those people should not be the one deciding everything. They are doing that over a decade and disappointed.
Tech companies are not made only of tech people. Those companies you named employ many engineers but are led, like any other company, by finance, sales and management. This whole story is actually about a conflict between the rank engineers and the management (similar to the earlier conflict about military projects).
You should totally trust the tech people, as they are the ones who are not in for the money (or less likely to be just in for the money, at least).
Actually, the whole story of Google not being trustworthy any longer might just be the story of engineering being slowly overruled by finance/management there.
I would totally trust Google AI researchers, like i would totally trust Einstein with the fussion theory. That employees were still able to overthrow a comitee formed by upper management will achieve more than whatever little benefit this comitee would have achieved.