I remember when Google made a whole big deal about their "AI Ethics Board" (or something along those lines), and then not even a year later they reshuffled it because those people were too critical of the company's practices.
And then when there was backlash they "promised to do better" and Sundar Pichai came out with some "principles" that the company would follow for AI.
Another 1-2 years later and here we are again - this just proves that whatever "AI Ethics Board" they might set-up, it will end up being a sham, because they'd never allow that board to stop them from using AI however they like if it's in the interest of the company's profit growth.
If we want real AI oversight we need to demand it from outside nonprofits or even government agencies (why not both?!) - and there should be zero affiliation between the company being monitored and those organizations/agencies.
At then end of the day the incentives for large companies are always monetary.
It might be that they follow ethics because the appearance to do so has a monetary public relations value. It always comes down to that, and for publicly traded companies that set up things like an "AI Ethics Board" it is always for show since the incentives don't allow for anything else.
At the end of the day someones compensation depends on these things and you can't be hurting the bottom line.
And then when there was backlash they "promised to do better" and Sundar Pichai came out with some "principles" that the company would follow for AI.
Another 1-2 years later and here we are again - this just proves that whatever "AI Ethics Board" they might set-up, it will end up being a sham, because they'd never allow that board to stop them from using AI however they like if it's in the interest of the company's profit growth.
If we want real AI oversight we need to demand it from outside nonprofits or even government agencies (why not both?!) - and there should be zero affiliation between the company being monitored and those organizations/agencies.