It's called "insubordination".
Is insubordination to represent your responsibility area, as Ethical AI Researcher?
Is insubordination to send an email in order to establish dialogue around matters of disagreement between professionals?
After reading, it seems very much in line with her role as an ethicist. She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets.
Its a bit sad that they attempted to censure such an innocuous paper that without malice states “there are risks to consider.”
What's the strongest argument against her "merely" doing this?
As I've stated in other post, this is very, very troublesome for AI and Google.
OTOH, Google has much emphasis on ethics in AI/ML otherwise. But the whole company, especially management, need to put actions in alignment with their words on this matter.
https://analyticsindiamag.com/how-is-ethical-ai-different-fr...
https://www.kdnuggets.com/2016/03/ethics-machine-learning-ta...
Such behaviour, unless corrected, undermines Google's entire AI/ML and cloud operations.
It's called steel manning.
However, without revealing names the paper outlines internal company matters, presenting opinions and tautology that do not fit proper format of professionally published research. Instead of reworking a flawed paper, the researcher escalated and exposed individual opinion, publicly. Such company representation is out of scope for research positions. As Google could not agree to terms of email, it was taken as resignation notice.
I believe we should have no curruption in Russia. By your logic, unless I can give a strong argument in favour of corruption, I am not prepared or not honest?
Are you prepared to give a rigorous argument in favour of: terrorist attacks, slavery, eugenics, facism, child labour, sexism
> If you can't argue the counter of your own position in the most honest way possible then either you're not prepared or not honest.
I didn't say that if your position is on the opposite side of child abuse and you don't want to change your position that you aren't honest.
Yes, I'm prepared to try and make the strongest argument possible for things I may not fully understand, until I do. Whatever those things make me feel.
Sometimes the strongest arguments have large flaws (mostly moral with you examples) but sometimes we just don't understand the opposing arguments and then just create strawmen to rage against.
I'm opposed to this type of irrational emotional behaviour. It causes things like mob violence which I'm very familiar with.
So when someone can't articulate the opposing views then they need to be warned or directed to do so. If they refuse and run back to a strawmen then yes they are not honest and obviously not prepared.
uMkhonto we Sizwe was a terrorist organization. But they had a very strong argument for why terrorism was an appropriate action.
I don't say that I agree with their use of violence, but they had an argument that makes blanket statements like "terrorism is evil" harder to make.
The strongest argument for her not doing it is keeping her job vs maintaining her professional responsibility as an ethicist, no?