I don’t see the slightest risk or inability to recruit tbh. There is no mass resignation either. They will keep recruiting just fine for their purposes is my guess, although there might be a few who refuse. Also by “responded” you mean they published a heavily legaled Google doc?
-
-
Honestly, I think this is wishful thinking despite enormous contrary evidence. I would have said maybe, let's see in 2016. We saw. There is an answer.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Completely agree with
@zeynep. Also, this premise is underestimating the (constantly growing) number of AI ethics researchers and overestimating the degree to which their presence matters to other AI engineers. Would also be surprised by more than rounding error of resignations.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Facebook pays more for AI engineers partly to compensate for its reputation on ethics; in other words, Google does get some recruiting benefit by appearing to cling to some “Do No Evil”. The hiring market for this talent is insanely competitive and marginal advantage matters.
-
I mean, from a business perspective, having a very public facing AI Ethics group at Google is like having a public facing environmental impact research group at Exxon; unless you think companies are altruistic, the purpose is virtue signaling to others.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Could not agree more with Zeynep. I see this in people (won't reveal identities) who talk a great talk about everything else except about companies that they want to be hired by, about whom there is a great deal to say and patently public. (Generous companies.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.