> I suppose that depends on whether you think an "Ethical AI" group's job is as window dressing or to actually make an ethical impact.
1. You can make an ethical impact without applying external pressure. Usually through internal channels. That is their expectations when they hire you.
2. Do you really think "apply external pressure via bad publicity on companynwhen necessary leaking internal documents" was in their job responsibilities?
Point 1 depends on the internal channels. If you have never had the experience of management not listening to you, I congratulate you on your luck and/or your youth.
As to point 2, I think that if Google didn't put "make a public stink if necessary" in the job description itself, they should have known it was part of the deal. You can't hire people for their independence and their ethics and then not expect them to be independent and ethical.
I've definitely had management not listen to me. But I wouldn't share that information publicly in order to get them to coerce them into making the right call. And if I did I definitely wouldn't expect to be working there for long.
Should have known that they were hiring people they would later consider trouble makers is a very different goal post than part of the job description.
In which case, you see yourself not as a professional, but as a minion. That's fine, but understand that it works differently for other people.
Consider a doctor, for example. A hospital can hire them and give them orders. But they see themselves as having a duty to the patient and to society. If something isn't right, they will surely say so internally first. But if harm continues, they absolutely will raise a ruckus, up to and including talking publicly.
That's not them being a "trouble maker". That's them being professionals, not bootlickers. Whether or not the hospital administrator puts that in the job description, everybody understands it's part of the deal.
It's weird that use the term and minion and professional in a way such that the farther you go up the org chart the more "minion like and unprofessional" they get. With the CEO probably being the most minion like and least profressional.
Not at all. The CEO isn't doing whatever the powerful tell him. Neither are high-level execs. See Locke and Spender's "Confronting Mangerialism" for a good breakdown of the game they're playing.
Its line workers, and maybe first-level managers that are the most minion-like, the ones who most believe that their job is to follow orders make their boss look good, without regard to impact, value, or ethics.
1. You can make an ethical impact without applying external pressure. Usually through internal channels. That is their expectations when they hire you.
2. Do you really think "apply external pressure via bad publicity on companynwhen necessary leaking internal documents" was in their job responsibilities?