Whistleblowers and ethics – is AI the latest field to be tested?

Less than a week ago, we witnessed one of the first whistleblowing incidents involving a big AI firm Open AI. This incident which the local police in San Francisco dubbed a suicide is not the end of a saga, despite the tragedy of the death of a young person, but the beginning of one, as the multiple lawsuits that may emerge from the details that the whistleblower, Suchir Balaji unearthed.

istockphoto.com
istockphoto.com

Whistleblowing has a long and hard tradition across the world and in particular, in the US. We discuss this issue in our Public Administration courses, not just the ethics class, but also in other core classes, including Public Admin Theory.

We have seen a host of high profile whistleblower cases : Snowden, Chelsea Manning and more recently Josh Paul, who protested against Biden government’s unqualified support for Israel, in its “war” on Gaza, which Amnesty International and even the UN has classified as a genocide. Josh Paul’s reason for resigning is that he the American efforts to support Israel without any regard for our own humanitarian laws and international norms as “shortsighted, destructive, unjust, and contradictory to the very values that we publicly espouse.

Each one of them can be seen as acting from a sense of higher self and a personal morality, even if it means breaking the law when the laws don’t uphold the morality of a society it is supposed to govern.

AI is an emerging field in some ways, however; the challenges that whistleblowing will throw up will be similar in nature to what has transpired in the past. The technicalities will involve well established field such as legal norms of copyrights, technology laws, among others.

There has been some debate on this issue, mainly from those studying and focusing on the ethical aspects of AI. As Timnit Gebru, a former Google computer scientists pointed out. She is a more recent whistleblower, who was fired from Google for pointing out the dangers of large scale language models. Her paper is what seems to have gotten her in trouble. The core of her thesis is that “facial recognition to be less accurate at identifying women and people of color, which means its use can end up discriminating against them.” Her argument was seen as challenging the status quo too much and in some ways subversive. The question that Gebru and her co-authors were asking was whether such large-scale language models were going to be used in ways that may harm some people and what steps google would take to prevent them. This seems to be a very relevant question in the context of AI and use of autonomous weapons in wars. We are already seeing this in the case of Ukraine and in Gaza. As a country that is one of the leaders in the field of AI, the US does have responsibility to regulate this space and make it safe for all Americans (and in some ways all human beings) as our technologies do impact people all around the world.

While the US and other countries have some form of whistleblower protection, there is much to be desired when it comes to protecting the whistleblowers. The gap between what is on the books and what happens is quite large. The value of media in exposing such unethical practices across the board is also crucial and at a time of increasing attacks on media, there is a greater need for vigilance on part of media.

As Ana Garrido Ramos speaks about her own experience as a whistleblower, the hardest part of the process is not the reporting the incident, but holding one’s ground and not giving in, to the pressure. Her tactics of appearing on media and exposing the corruption of local politicians in the greater Madrid area, where she worked as a government employee seems to have worked in her favor.

However, how are we to know that they are acting in everyone’s best interest and not just by their own moral compass (or desire for revenge)? This is hard one to answer and can only be answered with the passage of time.

 

 

 

Description:

 

 

Keywords. : AI, ethics, whistleblowing, government, copyrights

 

 

 

How can public servants help promote equity and justice?

With the recent protests against the killing of George Floyd, the focus is back on a segment of the population that is at the heart of this issue: the public servant. The police force is part of the machinery that has been, is, and will be a part of our daily lives, whether we like it or not. How they behave and treat the public will determine the future we will for ourselves. So, can we ensure that they are better ‘servants,’ to the public? If so, how?

george-floyd

My own training in public administration was at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, the nation’s oldest and most prestigious school of public affairs. The school has shaped the study of public administration and one of the founding credos of the school is that administration is not value-neutral. Dwight Waldo, one of the most influential PA scholars to have lived in this century taught at the Maxwell School and pushed forth the idea that bureaucrats come to work with a value framework and they are not ‘neutral’ executors of policy. Using this insight, we may well face the world as it is, rather than how we want it to be. How these bureaucrats manage these values in their public dealings may well determine what kind of society we live in.

If we look at many of the problems that we face: environmental issues, housing, employment; there is usually an issue involving power & the use of discretion in how one uses it. The notion of how ‘street-level bureaucrats’ exercise this power has been studied quite a bit in PA. The concept of administrative discretion originated with Michael Lipsky and has remained a robust one. As many scholars have argued, offering bureaucrats some discretion allows them to make better decisions, based on client needs.

If one looks around, there are instances when abuse of power is often a result of this discretion. Whether a cop pulls a gun on someone or restrains himself/herself, whether an arrest is made or a warning issued, these are instances when the bureaucrat at the street level is making conscious choices – either to escalate a situation or to de-escalate. This is also the case when the work-load on pubic employees is quite high. As Lipsky points out “Employees must use their personal discretion to become ‘inventive strategists’ by developing ways of working to resolve excessive workload, complex cases, and ambiguous performance targets.” One can suggest that this exercise of administrative discretion can also help address issues of discrimination and in equal treatment that many minorities receive when it comes to public health or other related issues. There are definite health disparities between African Americans and other minorities. As the Center for Diseases Control points out “African Americans aged 18-49 are two times as likely to die from heart disease than whites,” and also “African Americans aged 35-64 are 50% more likely to have a high blood pressure than whites.” This is due to a combination of factors, including lack of access to insurance, policies that do not let African Americans access health services, and sometimes, outright discrimination in the system, that keeps them out of reach of healthcare providers.

Some of the recommendations of the CDC are to: encourage healthcare providers to eliminate cultural barriers to care, to connect patients to community resources to help them take medications on time, and to do follow-up visits. With COVID-19 exposing the cracks in healthcare delivery in the U.S., there is an urgent need to address access to healthcare, access to insurance, and also empowering states to offer services to those who are marginalized. One of the steps could be to empower the street-level bureaucrats to do more, to address the inequities that exist. This may mean offering more resources to teachers, doctors, and other frontline workers, who are often in the best position to address inequities. It also means educating and enlightening them to do what is right.