What's up, practically our listeners, Alex D'Coveac here, editor-in-chief of Change Law, we partner with our friends behind the podcast Me, Myself, and AI, to share a full-length episode with you. It's a podcast on artificial intelligence and business, and it's produced by our friends at MIT's Low Management Review and Boston Consulting Group. We handpicked this episode because of its focus on using technology as a force for good, something we are very passionate about. This episode features Paul Goldman, who's the chief ethical and humane officer at Salesforce, and the conversation touches on some interesting topics around the role tech companies play in society at large.
Me, Myself, and I is available where to get your podcast to search me, myself, and AI to subscribe. Here we go. AI ethics are easy to espouse, but hard to do. How do we move from education and theory into practice?
Find out today when we talk with Paul Goldman, chief ethical and humane use officer at Salesforce. Welcome to Me, Myself, and AI, a podcast on artificial intelligence and business. Each episode, we introduce you to someone innovating with AI. I'm Sam Ransbotham, professor of information systems at Boston College.
I'm also the guest editor for the AI and Business Strategy Big Idea program at MIT Sloan Management Review. And I'm Shervin Kodabande, senior partner with BCG and I collate BCG's AI practice in North America. And together, MIT, SMR, and BCG have been researching AI for five years, interviewing hundreds of practitioners and surveying thousands of companies on what it takes to build and to deploy and scale AI capabilities across the organization and really transform the way organizations operate. Today, we're talking with Paul Goldman, chief ethical and humane use officer at Salesforce.
Paula, thanks for taking the time to talk with us today. Welcome. Thank you. I'm really excited to have this conversation.
Hi, Paula. Hi. Our podcast is Me, Myself, and AI. Let's start with a little bit of your current role at Salesforce.
First, what does Salesforce do and what is your role? Salesforce is a large enterprise technology company that if I had to really summarize what we do, we put out a lot of products that help our customers, which tend to be companies or sometimes nonprofit organizations or whatnot, connect better with their customers, their stakeholders, whether that's from a sales process, service, marketing, you name it. And data plays a really, really important role, like understanding, giving them the tools to understand their customers and what they need and serve them better. Within that, my role, I'm chief ethical and humane use officer, which I know is a bit of a mouthful.
It's a first of its kind position for Salesforce. And I work with our technology teams and more broadly across the organization on two things. One is as we're building technology, thinking about the impact of that technology at scale out in the world, trying to avoid some unintended consequences, trying to tweak things as we're building them to make sure that they have maximum positive impact. And then secondly, we work on policies that are really about the use of our technology and making sure that we are putting sufficient guardrails to make sure that our technology is not abused as it is used out in the world.
Tell us about your background. How do you end up in that role? Pretend you're a superhero. What's your origin story here?
Well, I guess, you know, I have the short story, the long story. The short story is essentially, I am super passionate about how technology can improve people's lives. And I spent a long time thinking about the tech for good side of that. Like, I worked for a while under Pierre Mediar, the founder of eBay, working to build an early stage investing practice that was investing in startups that use technology to serve underserved populations, whether that meant getting financial services to people that otherwise would be excluded in emerging markets, alternative sources of energy or whatnot.
Having done that for a long time, I think we started to see this shift in the role of technology in society. For a long time, I think the technology industry viewed itself as a bit of an underdog, a disrupter. And then all of a sudden, you could sort of look and see the writing on the wall and technology companies were not only the biggest companies and whatever financial index you want to name, but also technology was so pervasive in every aspect of all of our lives and, you know, even more so because of COVID. And I think we just sort of saw the writing on the wall and saw that the sort of famous adage with great, oh, I'm going to mess this up with great power comes great responsibility.
Perfect. Time to my superhero origin question, because that's this fireman go ahead. It's time to think about guardrails, particularly for emerging technologies like AI, but kind of across the board how to think about what do these technologies do at scale and like any industry that goes through a period of maturation, that's where I think tech is. That's kind of like my motivation around it.
And as part of that role, I was leading a tech ethics practice. I was asked to be on Salesforce's ethical use advisory board. And through that, they asked me to come lead this practice. Paul, your background's generally been quite focused on this topic, right?
I mean, even before Salesforce. That's right. You know, that's a bit of what I was referring to. I spent a lot of time, I mean, even just straight from college, I spent a lot of time on mission driven startups, often very technology driven that were meant to, again, open up opportunity.
For example, I spent a lot of time in India working with an affordable private school, but like thinking again about how to technology open up opportunity for these students. And many years later, I won't tell you how many years later, a lot of those students are actually working in technology in the country. Essentially, it's been a through line in my work. The role of technology and markets is a force for good.
How do we implement also appropriate guardrails and think about the power of trust and technology, which is ultimately so essential for any company that's putting out a product in the world these days? If you haven't already, make sure to check out the hit podcast Founders Journal with Alex Lieberman, the co-founder and executive chairman of Morning Brew. On Founders Journal, Alex gives you the tools you need to think better and to build better, whether you're building a new business, a new team, a new product, or just want to build yourself a better life. Plus, he gives you a backstage pass into how they built Morning Brew from the ground up, with insight into a startup investment strategy and more.
Follow Founders Journal on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcast. How do you think the nature of the dialogue has changed since you've been in this field for some time as one of the pioneers in this area? How do you think the nature of the dialogue has changed, let's say, from 10 years ago? Yeah.
You know, guardrails and ethical use versus now. I would say 10 years ago, and let's start with giving credit where credit is due. 10 years ago, certainly, there was a ton of leadership in academia thinking about these types of questions. And I think if you would go to a campus like MIT, you'd find a lot of professors teaching classes on this and doing research on this, it has been a long-standing field.
Society and technology, science and technology, call it what you will, and many other disciplines. But I don't think it was as widespread of a topic of public conversation. And today, you can hardly pick up a newspaper without seeing a headline about some sort of technology implication, whether it's AI or a privacy story or a social media story or whatnot. And certainly, it was fairly rare 10 years ago to think about companies hiring people with titles like mine.
I think about that history. I actually think a lot about the analogy of what the security industry went through, you know, let's call it in the 90s with security, right? So what the technology industry went through in the 90s was security. There too was a fairly immature field, and you might well as an observer at that point have looked at the viruses that we're attacking technology and thought, how could you possibly predict every risk and get a framework for getting ahead of it and fast forward to where we are now.
And it's a mature discipline. Most companies have teams around this and sets of protocols to make sure that their products don't have these vulnerabilities. And I think we're kind of in the early stages of a similar evolution, especially with AI and AI ethics, where these sorts of norms will become standard, and this is a specialized profession that's developing. Maybe this could be a little bit more specific here, and we've talked about needing guardrails.
What kinds of things do people need to be worried about? If we zoom in on AI specifically here, the positive potential impact and real-time impact of that technology is immense, right? So think about healthcare. One of our research teams is working on AI to spot breast cancer with machine learning, called receptor net.
That's the tip of the spear. There's so much stuff going on in healthcare that can improve outcomes and save lives. We have a project called Shark Eye, which is using vision to look at images at beaches and see if there's a shark there for a safety warning, right? There are many, many, many applications of AI like that that have huge benefits for humanity.
At the same time with technologies, there's often unintended consequences that come. AI is really an automation of human intelligence, and it's as good as the data that it gets fed, and that data is the result of human decisions, and it makes it imperfect. That's really important for us to look out for. It's very, very important for companies that are using it, to automate processes or especially make decisions that could impact human outcomes, whether that's a loan or, you know, an access to a job or whatnot.
I'm sure by now you've heard many times about the research that was done. I think, actually, partly at MIT about facial recognition by folks like Joy Blumwini, Internet Gebruh, and showing that facial recognition is more accurate on lighter skin people versus darker skin people, which can have catastrophic impacts if it's in a criminal justice setting. There's a lot of stuff to look out for to make sure that, in particular, that the questions of bias are appropriately safeguarded when developing this technology. On that point, clearly, there is a strong case to be made to make sure that, as you said, the unintended consequences are understood and mitigated and managed, that is only going to get more complex as AI gets smarter and there will be more data.
Do you think that there is a possibility of AI itself driving or being a contributor to more ethical outcomes or to more equity in certain processes? I mean, there's clearly a case for making sure AI doesn't do something crazy, and then is there also possible for AI to be used to make sure we humans don't do something crazy? Of course. I think that's the flip side that maybe doesn't get talked about as much, but humans making decisions about who gets alone or who gets a job are also very subject to bias.
So I think there is the potential, if done right, when AI is used in those circumstances, in combination with human judgment and appropriate guardrails for the three of those things to actually open up more opportunities together. And I'm just getting examples of use cases that I think that's probably across the board. Going back to the healthcare example, a doctor could be tired the day he's looking at a scan for cancer. And that's why sometimes we get into these polarized discussions of AI versus humans, and it's not an either or, it's an and, and it's with a set of guardrails and responsibilities.
I wanted to do a follow-up on the guardrails and responsibilities, and as you were thinking about ethical AI, either for Salesforce or more broadly for any organization, how much of the effort to do this at scale do you think is about guardrails and education and governance and more visibility and appreciation of the potential risks. So it's process and people kind of stuff versus technology itself. Absolutely. And when you think about part of the answer to these guardrails is the technology itself.
How do you build tools at scale to watch for risk factors? And this is actually something we try to do with our customers, right? So we have, we have integrated AI into a number of applications. For example, we have chatbots for customer service, and we have AI that helps sales people with lead and opportunity scoring so that they know which prospect to go after and can spend most of their time going after that prospect.
And within that, we've built technological safeguards and prods. Some of it is just the way we build the technology itself, but some of it is actually having the technology prompt the human and say, for example, hey, you're building a model. You have identified that maybe you don't want race as a variable in this model because it can introduce bias, but we see you have a field that is zip code and zip code can be highly correlated with race. I think the answer to your question is yes, there's a very human element to this question, but to address the debt scale, you actually need to automate the solution as well.
And again, it kind of comes back to what we were just saying of combining the technology, the human, the process, the judgment, all together to solve the problem. At Salesforce, we do something called consequence scanning, building off of an methodology put out by a nonprofit in the UK called everyone, and we've kind of customized it for a good. We're about to put a toolkit out around it, but we work with scrum teams at the beginning of a process and we say, it's actually kind of simple at the end of the day. Hey, what are you intending to build here?
And what might some of the unintended consequences be positive and negative? And from that, we generate ideas that actually go on the backlog for that team. And that's how you sort of influence the product roadmap. It's not foolproof for sure.
And you're not going to be getting better. It's getting better as you might expect it to as you start to see some of these consequences at scale and you start to see the sort of pushback and critique from society. And it's always more complicated than, you know, sort of black and white picture of how simple it might be to fix things. It's not simple to fix AI bias, but there's also no excuse for not paying attention to it now because it's such a known problem.
You know, you commented on the past in this field and how the evolution and strength of technology and tech firms has shifted the dialogue and you've talked a lot about the present. How do you think the future will be 10 years from now? How do you think this conversation we're having now, which 10 years ago, it wasn't commonplace, that hey, let's look at the algorithms, let's look at unfair treatments, let's get zip codes, whether it's a correlation to poverty levels or race, how do you think the future will be different? Well, you're asking me on a good day, so I'm optimistic about this, but really, I don't think these are easy things to scale, not in the beginning, as in any sort of big change in industry.
I think all the signs do point to the maturation of this type of work. I will say, especially with, you know, more obvious places like AI or crypto or, you know, things that are kind of in the news because of the questions that come up around them, I will also say there's a lot of regulatory pressure and some of that how that will play out will depend on a lot of very complicated politics. But you see it not only in the US, you see it in Europe that just released a draft AI law a couple of months ago, and in other jurisdictions as well, also privacy legislation, social media legislation, and those debates are bringing to the forefront, what is the responsibility of technology companies versus governments and the role that civil society can play? And I think you can pick apart any particular proposal with pros and cons, but the debate itself is very healthy in large part.
And I take a lot of hope from that because if you were to ask me what's going to happen with technology companies on their own, I actually don't think it would scale on its own, right? It's part of an ecosystem where companies play a role, civil society groups play a role, that voice is very, very important, and it's a combination of all those things, which I will say actually has surprised me in terms of how robust it's remained and the conversation keeps deepening and widening. Well, okay, this is great enough about you, but I can focus on me for a minute. I teach a bunch of college students.
Let's talk about you, sir. I teach a bunch of college students. That seems like a way to influence the future. What should we be telling people?
I mean, I have a Monday morning, I have a class on machine learning and artificial intelligence. What can you vicariously tell me to tell them? What should we be talking about? Well, what have you told them?
I'm curious. I feel a little bit negative because every class, even though it's a technical class, we start with what's happening in the news, and I feel evil because the news is lots of times either a glorious example of something that could happen in a lab in 30 years or something terrible that's happening right now. I feel like I come to the dark side. What should we be telling college students or people heading into this field?
I'm going to go on a little bit of a tangent and then come back to your question. I think your commentary in the news is really apt, and it does relate to the conversation about technology because it is very extreme right now. It's all the things that are wrong, which we should talk about for sure, and then all these kind of overstated claims about what will happen in 30 years, but ignoring that there's a lot of just extraordinary benefit right now also happening from technology. I could go on and on about this, thinking about what technology did for society during COVID and how it helped businesses stay open and people stay safe and on and on.
I think there is a more nuanced conversation that balances the real need for caution and societal engagement. At the end of the day, when you get this right, technology is an extraordinary force for opening up opportunity for people. I think that kind of basic thinking about that balance in how we teach up-and-coming people who might indeed work in technology is very important. I will also say I've been super heartened over the last years to see the blossoming of curricula that are around tech ethics, especially in a university setting.
I remember a few years ago when I was at Omidyar Network, we sponsored a sort of challenge for educators and professors to work this into CS curriculum. We see that blossoming all over the place, a lot of integration across different technological disciplines. That's super heartening because then it's part of the conversation. The real challenge you want to avoid working in a company is that this is seen as some effort off in a corner, separate from the real business.
It's governance. Exactly. You want technologists to see this as part of their job. It's so cool that we're seeing more and more ways that professors are just integrating this into the standard curricula of name or technological discipline.
One of the things that I like to do in class is give people data sets and then say, I think I told you it was x. It actually is race. How does that change what you feel about? What else you just did and how proud you were of the significant results you got based on using that variable?
Does it matter in y? Does it work? That's a great educational tool. Yeah.
I think it does work because it says, well, hey, you're just treating this as data, but this data actually represents something in the real world that is a attribute of a real human versus an abstract number in row seven and column three. That's another huge topic and another really important thing to set when we're teaching is that data is a person most likely and keeping that in mind as we're thinking about what data we're collecting, what are intended uses, whether we really need that data, super, super important, something that we also spend a lot of time thinking about within our overall tech ethics work at Salesforce. So when you're hiring people, what do you want them to know? What kind of skills are people needing?
How can you tell if there's someone's going to use their power with great responsibility to come back to your power quote? This is a great one. It's something that DJ Patel, who's a former chief technologist at the United States, he talks about this a lot too in the context of data science in the hiring process when you're asking someone, so often hiring processes will have an exercise that they'll ask someone to do. See how they deal with it, see how coherent the answer is.
I think those types of little cues, they not only help you evaluate how sophisticated someone's thinking is about those questions, but those cultural cues cannot be underestimated. When we think about that a lot as well, how do we create a culture in which everyone feels like it's their responsibility to think about these questions? And part of that is about giving them the tools that they need to do it and the incentives that they need to do it, which include having this be echoed all around by leadership. It's like, how often are you coming up running across these questions, whether it's an interview process or it's in an all hands or it's in your one-on-one with your manager, it matters a lot, which brings me back to why I'm so excited that this is starting to really flourish in university settings, in the teaching itself, in the core curriculums, it's those cues matter a lot.
Well, this is all quite fascinating. I think if we come back to what Sherman instigated beginning was how technology can affect society and can affect the organization as a whole, not so much lots about how we use technology, but these technologies affect us and affect society, and it's notable that those effects can be positive in value building or negative, and it just depends on how we make those choices to use it. Thank you for taking the time to talk with us. I really enjoyed it.
Yeah, thank you so much. Very insightful. It was super fun. Thank you for having me.
Coming up in our next episode, we'll speak with Barbara Martin Coppola, Chief Digital Officer at IKEA. Please join us. Thanks for listening to Me, Myself, and AI. We believe, like you, that the conversation about AI implementation doesn't start and stop with this podcast.
That's why we've created a group on LinkedIn specifically for listeners like you. It's called AI for leaders. And if you join us, you can chat with show creators and hosts, ask your own questions, share your insights, and gain access to valuable resources about AI implementation from MIT SMR and BCG. You can access it by visiting MITSMR.com forward slash AI for leaders.
We'll put that link in the show notes and we hope to see you there.