That's obviously not true. Ethics often have some nuance and some subjectiveness, but it's not something entirely subjective up to "politics".
Saying this makes it sound like you work at a startup for an AI powered armed drone, and your view of it is 'eh, ethics is subjective, this is fine' when asked how do you feel about responsibility and AI killing people.
Ethics are entirely subjective, as is inherently true of anything that supports "should" statements, because to justify any should statement, you need another "should" statement, you can never rest should entirely on "is" (you can, potentially, reset any entire system of "should" one root "should" axiom, though in practice most systems have more than one root axiom.)
And the process of coming to social consensus on a system of ethics is precisely politics.
You can dislike that this is true, but it is true.
> Saying this makes it sound like you work at a startup for an AI powered armed drone, and your view of it is 'eh, ethics is subjective, this is fine' when asked how do you feel about responsibility and AI killing people.
Understanding that ethics is subjective does not mean that one does not have a strong ethical framework that they adhere to. It just means that one understands the fundamental nature of ethics and the kind of propositions that ethical propositions inherently are.
Understanding that ethics are subjective does not, in other words, imply the belief that all beliefs about ethics (or, a fortiori, matters that are inherently subjective more generally) are of equal moral/ethical merit.
Is it always wrong to kill people? If you say yes, then you are also saying it's wrong to defend yourself from people who are trying to kill you.
This is what I mean by subjective.
And then since Google is beholden to US laws, if the US government suddenly decides that helping Ukraine to defend itself is wrong, but you personally believe defending Ukraine is right, suddenly you have a problem...