[geofft]

But the board is there to advise Google on hard questions, not easy ones. Is it unethical, for instance, to use AI to detect and block potential child pornography and flag it for potential referral to law enforcement? Probably not, but anyone can tell you that. Is it unethical to use AI to identify "gender ideology propaganda" and refer that to law enforcement in places where it's illegal? Depends on whether you think such laws are ethical. If the council can't answer that, what use is it?

(If the point of the council is to tell you things that anyone with a functioning conscience could tell you, then the fact that it's needed is a serious indictment of Google management. I'd like to think the council is here for the hard questions.)

[qmanjamz]

If you stack your council with people of entirely one viewpoint, there's little point in having a council at all. Create a board entirely of Muslims and it's going to say we should fast during Ramadan. If Google tries to cite that board as an ethical authority to justify a policy of mandatory fasting, they're not going to convince many people.

With a diverse board, the answers to some questions are going to be inconclusive. But that doesn't mean the board shouldn't exist at all. And it certainly doesn't mean we should eliminate all diversity in the board.

[educationdata]

How many conservatives do they have on the board? I feel viewpoint diversity should at least be close to nationwide percentage.

[geofft]

Which nation? Google operates in many countries - should it be proportional to business activity in each country?