Memo: The Negative Publicity Regarding the Ethics in Google's AI

Memo: Stage 1&2&3
Memo: Stage 1&2
Alphabet Inc.
03/29/2022
TO: Jeff Dean, Head of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
FR: Ava, Head of Communications and Public Affairs
RE: The Negative Publicity Regarding the ethics in Google's AI
The firing of Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell because of calling for more diversity among research staff and advocating for ethical research in AI has continued to raise questions regarding Google's commitment to diversity and ethical AI. Gebru was the technical co-lead of the Ethical AI Team, while Mitchell worked as a Senior Research Scientist. The firing of the two in one and half months has earned the company negative publicity. This memo enables the company to address the negative publicity the company has received regarding its commitment to ethical AI by making a press statement. The communication should be truthful and honest (National Communication Association, 1999).
The Challenge
Google needs to decide how to communicate to the press and bloggers about its commitment to ethical AI research. According to Hagendorff (2020), individuals and organizations must adhere to AI research ethics. Dignum (2017) further indicates the need for AI researchers to consider moral and societal values when designing an AI system. The company needs to demonstrate that it understands ethical commitment in its AI research and development.
The public knows that Gebru and Mitchell lost their jobs because they committed to ensuring that Google's AI research adhered to racial equality. In an article appearing on The Verge, Vincent (2021) has written extensively about how the firing of the two individuals has caused irreversible damage to the company's reputation. This is even though Google commits to ensuring racial equity. The organization commits to building sustainable equity for its Black community and making its products helpful in areas that matter to Black users (Google, 2022b)
The negative publicity surrounding the issue has adverse effects on the employees, investors, and the Black community. Gebru has demonstrated that Google's facial recognition is less accurate at identifying women and people of color. The firing of Gebru shows the employees that the management is more vulnerable to ethical critiques than the public thought (Simonite, 2020). The employees will feel intimidated when voicing their concerns about areas in AI research they feel are unethical. The investors will be hurt when the company's market capitalization reduces because of the negative publicity. Their investment is jeopardized because of its inability to correct its reputation. The community will be adversely affected by AI products that are unethical. Such products will advance the wrong notion that organizations can be at the forefront in promoting racism. Despite the company's commitment to avoid pursuing AI applications that are likely to cause overall harm and reinforce unfair bias while making socially beneficial products accountable to people and upholding high scientific excellence (Google, 2022a).
Each of the three stakeholders can voluntarily choose if they will be affected. Each stakeholder can drop the company at will if it violates morality. The employees can voluntarily determine whether to be affected by the moral issue. The workers may decide to resign when management insists they continue engaging in unethical activities. The investors have control over the problem since they can directly address it. The Black community can boycott Google AI products they deem to be racist. The public demands that organizations do the right thing (Ethics & Compliance Initiative, 2022).
It is vital to take corrective measures to communicate Alphabet's commitment to morality in the research and development of AI. This will be public confidence in the organization.
The Approach
To address the moral issue, I was allowed to form a team. I invited Corey duBrowa, VP of Global Communications and Public Affairs. Corey was critical to the team since he would communicate the decision of Google concerning the ethical issue. I also invited Jeff Dean, lead of Google AI. Jeff was instrumental in helping the team to understand how Google's AI works and the issues facing the division. Given that Gebru and Mitchell were working in the AI division, Jeff was crucial in demonstrating the changes that have taken place since the firing of the two researchers. Lastly, Melonie Parker, the Chief Diversity Officer, was part of the team. Parker is responsible for ensuring global diversity and inclusion in the company. She ensures employee compliance, relations, and governance. Parker was instrumental in advising the team on measures that need to be taken to avoid repeating the same problem in the future.
The first step to examining the issue was assessing the situation. Here, the team gathered information on what happened that led to the firing of Gebru and Mitchell. This was a recognition of the situation that led to the ethical problem. The team also identified articles in the public domain that had discussed the issue. The general reaction of the public towards the ethical issues was considered. Secondly, a diagnosis of the moral issue was made. The team identified the moral problem by clarifying the issue facing the organization. In this case, the members acknowledged that the firing of the two researchers, although justified by the management, was not received well by public members. Google remains committed to racial equality and works towards advocating for the rights of all individuals (Google, 2022b). The public considered the firing of the two researchers as a demonstration that Google wanted to continue with a culture of racial discrimination. Examining the issue required moral courage on the part of the team members. According to Hannah, Avolio & May (2011), moral courage entails overcoming threats and fear for morals or a higher purpose. The issue was challenging since the management deemed the firing of Gebru and Mitchell a violation of Google's policies. However, the team members were committed to viewing the issue objectively.
Thirdly, the members came up with a plan to address the moral problem. Here, options were identified with the probable short-term and long-term consequences to the different stakeholders. For instance, the team considered that failing to address the issue would continue painting Google's AI research as not committed to adhering to ethics. At the same time, Google prides itself on working toward racial equality by promoting the interests of the Black community (Google, 2022b). On the other hand, the team considered that addressing the issue could demonstrate the company's position concerning moral issues. The company can explain why the two AI researchers were fired, indicating that that had nothing to do with Google's intolerance of diverse ideas. Lastly, the team implemented the decision. The ultimate decision was to communicate to the public because the two employees were fired while demonstrating the company's commitment to ethical research. This was seen as the best way of addressing the negative publicity the company had faced. The members agreed to continue evaluating the decision and determine its effectiveness.
The Causes
a) Internal
One internal factor contributing to the moral problem is communication. Google encourages open communication between the employees and the executives. Managers allow workers to question issues affecting the company without any adverse effects. The culture of open communication has allowed the employees to debate to persuade the management concerning major decisions. However, at the same time, communication breakdown has increased as the ...