After reading, it seems very much in line with her role as an ethicist. She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets.
Its a bit sad that they attempted to censure such an innocuous paper that without malice states “there are risks to consider.”
We haven't heard any arguments, only that management can do as they please when they don't like results of AI Ethics Research. We'll likely not get anything substantial, ever, either.
As I've stated in other post, this is very, very troublesome for AI and Google.
OTOH, Google has much emphasis on ethics in AI/ML otherwise. But the whole company, especially management, need to put actions in alignment with their words on this matter.
"No artificial neural network is near a point where we can talk about it having moral responsibility separate from its trainers’ and deployers’ – but we can make it sound like it does, and exonerate them, if we call it AI." https://twitter.com/shashashasha/status/1335067153402355714
Modern ethical AI / ML, is both that and beyond that. Issues range vastly in how complex algorithms can be used, misused and misinterpreted. There are also issues of uncovering hidden biases, unfairness, manipulative effects, privacy issues, risk and impact analysis, explanatory AI, who is accountable for accidents and malicious acts, etc. The list goes on covering both the legal and the political. This may not be unique to ML / AI, but is harder to quantify and prove, with more prevalent usage of complex algorithms.
My strongest argument is AGAINST managers at Google getting to micromanage, censor and to revenge-fire a researcher, just because they personally disagree with their published AI Ethics Research. A job said researcher was tasked with and leading.
Such behaviour, unless corrected, undermines Google's entire AI/ML and cloud operations.