"Dr. Hinton said he has quit his job at Google, where he has worked for more than decade and became one of the most respected voices in the field, so he can freely speak out about the risks of A.I. A part of him, he said, now regrets his life’s work."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html
Many women from Google who were pushed out and/or left have commented with agreement and frustration at Hinton's statements after departing Google. As @Mer__edith has written:
"Where were these guys when we spent months + thousand$ on lawyers? Where were they when we were organizing to stop it before it reached this point? Where were they when Sundar lied about us & diminished the risks we demonstrated? I'm not interested in dissent without solidarity."
“Where were these guys when we spent months + thousand$ on lawyers? Where were they when we were organizing to stop it before it reached this point? Where were they when Sundar lied about us & diminished the risks we demonstrated? I'm not interested in dissent without solidarity.”
Within tech, there's a script of (especially) men seeking fame from hyping a system to gain resources/power, then warning people about its dangers once they face criticism over the dangers.
Back in (checks) 2019, I called this the "evilbrag":
When a powerful man makes a hairshirt apology in a national magazine, to manage reputational risks and also acquire even more resources, even though they helped create the problem in the first place.
It's like a humblebrag for the harms you caused
For some reason guys in tech who cause serious harms seem to only understand the idea of failing upward.
The public evilbrag is a basic stepping stone in that upward mobility.
Joseph Wiezenbaum, who developed the first widely-known AI chat system in 1966, authored one of the classic evilbrags in the field.
By expressing worry about the risks of the AI systems he created (and computers and the Internet), he was catapulted to stardom as a result (and made some important early critiques)
MIT professor Joseph Weizenbaum created a beguiling artifact of early computing called Eliza. But after test subjects said the program empathized with their problems, he spent decades preaching the computer apocalypse.
Why do people fall in love with evilbrags from people who created the problems they now decry?
Facing the failures of technocentrism, people worry that the solutions might also be technocentric (rather than social or political) and conclude that only the experts who caused the problem can help manage it.
The result? Imagined solutions reproduce exactly the same blindspots that created the problem in the first place.
J. Nathan Matias 🦣
Christopher Schwartz