Google told its scientists to 'strike a positive tone' in AI research -
documents
Send a link to a friend
[December 23, 2020]
By Paresh Dave and Jeffrey Dastin
OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) - Alphabet Inc's
Google this year moved to tighten control over its scientists' papers by
launching a "sensitive topics" review, and in at least three cases
requested authors refrain from casting its technology in a negative
light, according to internal communications and interviews with
researchers involved in the work.
Google's new review procedure asks that researchers consult with legal,
policy and public relations teams before pursuing topics such as face
and sentiment analysis and categorizations of race, gender or political
affiliation, according to internal webpages explaining the policy.
"Advances in technology and the growing complexity of our external
environment are increasingly leading to situations where seemingly
inoffensive projects raise ethical, reputational, regulatory or legal
issues," one of the pages for research staff stated. Reuters could not
determine the date of the post, though three current employees said the
policy began in June.
Google declined to comment for this story.
The "sensitive topics" process adds a round of scrutiny to Google's
standard review of papers for pitfalls such as disclosing of trade
secrets, eight current and former employees said.
For some projects, Google officials have intervened in later stages. A
senior Google manager reviewing a study on content recommendation
technology shortly before publication this summer told authors to "take
great care to strike a positive tone," according to internal
correspondence read to Reuters.
The manager added, "This doesn't mean we should hide from the real
challenges" posed by the software.
Subsequent correspondence from a researcher to reviewers shows authors
"updated to remove all references to Google products." A draft seen by
Reuters had mentioned Google-owned YouTube.
Four staff researchers, including senior scientist Margaret Mitchell,
said they believe Google is starting to interfere with crucial studies
of potential technology harms.
"If we are researching the appropriate thing given our expertise, and we
are not permitted to publish that on grounds that are not in line with
high-quality peer review, then we're getting into a serious problem of
censorship," Mitchell said.
Google states on its public-facing website that its scientists have
"substantial" freedom.
Tensions between Google and some of its staff broke into view this month
after the abrupt exit of scientist Timnit Gebru, who led a 12-person
team with Mitchell focused on ethics in artificial intelligence software
(AI).
Gebru says Google fired her after she questioned an order not to publish
research claiming AI that mimics speech could disadvantage marginalized
populations. Google said it accepted and expedited her resignation. It
could not be determined whether Gebru's paper underwent a "sensitive
topics" review.
Google Senior Vice President Jeff Dean said in a statement this month
that Gebru's paper dwelled on potential harms without discussing efforts
underway to address them.
Dean added that Google supports AI ethics scholarship and is "actively
working on improving our paper review processes, because we know that
too many checks and balances can become cumbersome."
[to top of second column]
|
An illuminated Google logo is seen inside an office building in
Zurich, Switzerland December 5, 2018. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann
'SENSITIVE TOPICS'
The explosion in research and development of AI across the tech
industry has prompted authorities in the United States and elsewhere
to propose rules for its use. Some have cited scientific studies
showing that facial analysis software and other AI can perpetuate
biases or erode privacy.
Google in recent years incorporated AI throughout its services,
using the technology to interpret complex search queries, decide
recommendations on YouTube and autocomplete sentences in Gmail. Its
researchers published more than 200 papers in the last year about
developing AI responsibly, among more than 1,000 projects in total,
Dean said.
Studying Google services for biases is among the "sensitive topics"
under the company's new policy, according to an internal webpage.
Among dozens of other "sensitive topics" listed were the oil
industry, China, Iran, Israel, COVID-19, home security, insurance,
location data, religion, self-driving vehicles, telecoms and systems
that recommend or personalize web content.
The Google paper for which authors were told to strike a positive
tone discusses recommendation AI, which services like YouTube employ
to personalize users' content feeds. A draft reviewed by Reuters
included "concerns" that this technology can promote
"disinformation, discriminatory or otherwise unfair results" and
"insufficient diversity of content," as well as lead to "political
polarization."
The final publication instead says the systems can promote "accurate
information, fairness, and diversity of content." The published
version, entitled "What are you optimizing for? Aligning Recommender
Systems with Human Values," omitted credit to Google researchers.
Reuters could not determine why.
A paper this month on AI for understanding a foreign language
softened a reference to how the Google Translate product was making
mistakes following a request from company reviewers, a source said.
The published version says the authors used Google Translate, and a
separate sentence says part of the research method was to "review
and fix inaccurate translations."
For a paper published last week, a Google employee described the
process as a "long-haul," involving more than 100 email exchanges
between researchers and reviewers, according to the internal
correspondence.
The researchers found that AI can cough up personal data and
copyrighted material - including a page from a "Harry Potter" novel
- that had been pulled from the internet to develop the system.
A draft described how such disclosures could infringe copyrights or
violate European privacy law, a person familiar with the matter
said. Following company reviews, authors removed the legal risks,
and Google published the paper.
(Reporting by Paresh Dave and Jeffrey Dastin; editing by Jonathan
Weber and Edward Tobin)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |