zlacker

Let's be clear, the reason Google didn't want to jump into conversation search is because it invalidates large portions of their business model.

At best they want to avoid bad publicity of their tech just being bad enough to throw out racist remarks. But the company who dropped "don't be evil" from their mission statement, and who fired AI ethics researchers for their research in AI bias that Google did not like is not a morale authority on the matter.

Also, Google does not provide an ad-free paid version of google, you statement is a non-sequitur.

>>deevia+(OP)
> who fired AI ethics researchers for their research in AI bias that Google did not like

I'm no fan of Google, but this seriously glosses over a rather complex situation. A paper may have been the catalyst, but I'd argue definitely not the reason for the firings. You can't just demand things with the threat of quitting, then act surprised when you're terminated.

>>silisi+ra
I don’t agree with that, it wasn’t even a complex situation, Google just didn’t like the idea that a paper attributed to them could point out all the obvious unethical implications of this technology and shut it down.

The drama afterwards is largely irrelevant and if anything Gebru’s refusal to just meekly accept the company line demonstrates just how valuable she is in this field. The dismissal isn’t the real story, the retraction of the paper is the real problem the OP is referring to when discussing Google’s moral issues.