Leadership Archives | The Public Sphere

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.

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

The Atlantic published an interesting article recently about the secret for Germany’s success in tackling the COVID-19 crisis: A scientist at the helm of political affairs, Chancellor Angela Merkle. This is an interesting argument to ponder. Why have countries/ regions that have scientists/technocrats as leaders done well, while those run by run-of-the-mill politicians done badly? Controversial much? I think there is some merit in this argument.

Source: psafinancial.com

Let’s focus on Germany. As Miller points out “For weeks now, Germany’s leader has deployed her characteristic rationality, coupled with an uncharacteristic sentimentality, to guide the country through what has thus far been a relatively successful battle against COVID-19,” going on to add that her calm demeanor, scientific rationality, and wisdom is paying off, both politically and scientifically.

The reason for her success, Miller points out, is the trust of German people in bureaucracy and order – and scientific thinking. The charismatic leadership of the style that Hitler practiced is seen with suspicion.

On the other hand, in many parts of the world, we are witnessing the ravages of such a style of leadership, with leaders blustering, lying, and misinforming people. The facts speak for themselves, though the amount of misinformation is so high that the average person with little critical thinking skills is confused and falls for propaganda – either from the state or from special interest groups.

We may also be witnessing a clear winner emerging, in terms of style of leadership, with bureaucratic leadership emerging a winner, over charismatic leadership. There is of course a long history of debate over whether we need more bureaucracy in our societies or more democracy. In countries such as the U.S., where freedom is valued above all else, this sort of clamping down of freedoms by the state is seen with great suspicion. The recent protests over closures in the U.S. across many states are part of this process.

Clearly, people want freedoms to do what they want and get back to their normal lives. When one’s livelihood is threatened, scientific rationality goes out the window. However, this is not the time to be impulsive and risk the gains made. In many parts of the world, there is evidence that the shutdowns are working and there is indeed a flattening of the curve. It is the leader’s responsibility to emphasize this and to ensure that people get support, financial and otherwise, during this pandemic. California, for instance, seems to be flattening the curve. However, more needs to be done and the shutdowns need to be in place for a longer period of time.

One of the key tasks of any leader- political or otherwise – is to ‘call it like it is,’ when it comes to critical issues pertaining to public health or safety. This responsibility is more so if that leader is an expert in science or technology and has specific information that is not available to others, as Sean O’Keefe, the former NASA administrator pointed out, during a web conference.

In an ideal world, rationality would prevail and would inform the best decisions. However, we live in a world where politics gets in the way and often, the best decisions are not taken, rather we may, as a society make decisions that are politically ideal. This is the bane of our societies, which are democratic. If we end up electing demagogues, then we will be served with propaganda and falsehoods.

Trust in a leader is important to tackle such a crisis as covid-19. And we are seeing across the board that this trust can be either used for tackling the crisis or for furthering the political agenda. As an example, Merkel has used this trust to reinforce the need for social solidarity and the need to follow directives and scientific advice. And for the most part, Germans seem to be heeding her. As Miller points out “Her rational assurances and her emotional appeal was crucial at a time of rising panic. While the mood isn’t quite so dark here anymore—thanks to a variety of factors, Germany appears to have dealt with the outbreak better than many other countries—Germans largely continue to heed the chancellor’s detailed directives.” Merkel has been a trusted scientific and political figure and continues to lead calmly and is likely to lead her country out of this crisis, with minimal damage.

Maybe the bigger lesson from this crisis is that more scientific leaders should enter the political realm. Maybe the answer to our troubles is more scientific leadership and less political leadership. And perhaps that starts with the electorate. A more informed and educated citizenry is needed to elect leaders who act rationally. So, in some ways, the leaders we are seeing in the public sphere reflect who we are, as a people. Don’t like what you see out there? Then, better change what goes into making those people win. That, I think is the biggest lesson for us all.

Category: Leadership

How do we find better leaders to lead us through crises?