Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not OK, Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 594 posts

Re: Not OK, Google

#121

Post by eternalban »

darklajid wrote: post #79
TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

What I think is interesting is that many of us nerds have probably innocuously fantasized about having a Star Trek-like AI assistant with us, but now that they're taking the first steps towards that, we're starting to realize that in order for it to do everything for us, it has to know everything about us, too.

Has Star Trek even a currency? It always feels like a socialist/communist thing to me. You cannot compare the world's biggest seller of advertisement space with the ST universe. The motivation's aren't aligned: Google/Alphabet want to make sales based on my information. I agree that I found these oh so clever AI fantasies interesting in my youth, still do to a degree. But I always pictured the data being held inacces…

Star Trek's world seems to be a 'utopia' of scientific-military governance. Most of the key players have a military rank, wear color coded uniforms, and appear to be under 24/7 surveillance (which is OK since this is a very nice and progressive scientific-military goverment and you know War On and all that. :)

Re: Not OK, Google

#122

Post by rwbcxrz »

I seem to remember having a lot of the same feelings during the Apple event last month. The Nike+ Apple Watch will "helpfully suggest gear" for your workouts.

Ads have become utterly pervasive, and avoiding using Google's AI isn't going to protect you from them. My Samsung "Smart" TV has ads for Hulu built right into the operating system (despite my being a Hulu subscriber at the time). Windows 10 is basically one big advertisement (at least the consumer edition).

If I have to have ads blasted in my face all the time, I'll take Google's AI-driven ones that at least stand a chance of being less annoying.

Re: Not OK, Google

#123

Post by darkpicnic »

mattmanser wrote: post #28
option_greek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We always assumed they wouldn't spill their beans to third parties. I guess that was assuming too much.

It really is the big problem at the moment with the cutting edge of AI. ML relies on large data-sets and if anyone tried to release a personal device it simply wouldn't even work, let alone compete with the mass surveillance google/ms/amazon are bringing to bear. Unless the state-of-the-art in AI suddenly morphs, we seem to be stuck between giving up our privacy or having vaguely intelligent AI. I personally fall hea…

This is simply a matter of AI not being advanced enough at the moment. Take how a human learns: it acquires experiences and information over a long childhood, and from this "data set" is able to do millisecond predictions of future events based off completely new data.

What needs to happen is a company needs to come along and create AI that is trained off of generalized information... some kind of socially accepted public data set... then the trained core is sold as a seed to individuals who then feed it their personal data.

It'll be the equivalent of buying an AI "teenager" and slowly training them to be an "adult".

Re: Not OK, Google

#124

Post by quickben »

dmamills wrote: post #53
quickben wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about for potential risks? What if thieves/criminals get a hold of that data? 'Oh he goes to the pool every day 2-3 and lives alone with no home alarms'.

I'd be amused at the concept of a hacker who also likes to perform break and enters. Once I arrived home and discovered all of my privacy invading electronics stolen, I'd probably pull out my phone and say "Ok Google, call the cops."

Eh, probably it will be like the credit card and identity theft scams. One group steals it, another one uses.

Re: Not OK, Google

#125

Post by WallowC_33 »

Eupolemos wrote: post #60
ubercore wrote: post #11

Google Now has done the same for me, told me how long it will take to get to a bar I frequent. My reaction was quite exactly "Oh that's neat, thanks!" and I went and had a great burger that night. Totally OK for me Google. I respect that people have different privacy thresholds, but I think the fact that it's different for everyone is being lost in articles like this.

I fear you will be unable to recognize when that burger was your choice and when it was a reaction. You probably won't notice. And that is harmless. I also fear you will be unable to notice in which areas of life and information the distinction between choice and reaction is harmless and which it isn't. Of course, I'm not talking about "You" you, but just people. Me as well. I feel we are widening the field of uncons…

Given all the other points in life where, despite my awareness, I don't have much choice, how is an AI just directing me really any different?

My culture, education and skills limit what work I can do.

Our culture places limits on a vast number of experiences. On the road and the only thing is fast food? Welp, eating fast food. Live somewhere that only has one grocery store or cable provider?

I don't really see AI in the form Google is peddling as really all that much different. We're just 'more aware' that the world around us is really guiding us.

I may be somewhere new, and can only see the immediate surroundings without a lot of exploring. And let's be real, in the US, most cities are the same when it comes to restaurants/hotels and such. There are differences in culture but we don't usually see them if we're just visiting. Not in a way that matters.

Google will let me know that the things I prefer back home? there are equivalents nearby.

Fencing ourselves in is what we do. Who knows, perhaps a digital assistant would help us stick to our personal goals and decisions better. Rather than just having to accept what's there.

Re: Not OK, Google

#126

Post by daenney »

internaut wrote: post #55
api wrote: post #2

I will never put an always on Internet connected microphone run by an advertising company in my house. I don't care if it literally spits out cash and cures cancer.

Same here. The constraint is going to kill Google and Apple because a future competitor is going to manage to offer service without requiring the data in raw form, an example of which would be Agent Based Computation in say 15 years time. Because of that it shall become the standard. Google and Apple will be stuck because their stakeholders include parties which require the raw form even if Google/Apple did not. That…

You appear to assume that companies don't change in 15 years. Considering the past 15 years where Apple was almost dead and Microsoft couldn't ever be a company contributing to and open sourcing many things I'm not sure that premise holds.

Apple's approach to this is already different than Google's and has (arguably) hampered them a bit, but that might pay off long term and give them an opportunity to evolve, change and adapt in other ways to.

I see no particular reason either company couldn't change their tactics, regardless of shareholders. Granted evolving with technology is not necessarily easy/without its challenges but if staying with your current model is going to lose you customers, and as such data and therefor your income, why would you stick with it? If no one cares enough to stop sending them their data in the face of better/more privacy sensible alternatives, then it seems their model would still work.

Re: Not OK, Google

#127

Post by wj »

mojuba wrote: post #50
ubercore wrote: post #11

Google Now has done the same for me, told me how long it will take to get to a bar I frequent. My reaction was quite exactly "Oh that's neat, thanks!" and I went and had a great burger that night. Totally OK for me Google. I respect that people have different privacy thresholds, but I think the fact that it's different for everyone is being lost in articles like this.

One tiny caveat being that, Google (and others as well, to be fair) will be able to indirectly collect data even on the privacy-aware part of the population who don't use Google much. The simplest example being, even if you don't use GMail, still some part of your emails inevitably end up in GMail inboxes. Now also consider this: just being a guest in a Google-stuffed house means you are under surveillance. So no, it…

If you visit a place of business you are potentially under surveillance. I'm sure there is a distinction but I'm failing to come up with it right now.

I was somewhat radical about privacy in the late 90s (only person I knew that read every EULA) and am still a supporter of the EFF but I don't really understand the issue here.

Re: Not OK, Google

#128

Post by dmoy »

bbctol wrote: post #94
ubercore wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols?pli=1 do what you're asking for? It's fairly fine-grained.

As was mentioned below, in Google's case I'm particularly looking for ease of use and a UI that lets me turn things on and off quickly and intuitively. That might sound odd, as if I care deeply enough about my privacy to complain about it, but not enough to quickly switch the settings on my Google account, but I do think it matters. The more specific work I need to go through to set up my privacy, the less inclined I…

Did you check that link? It looks fairly intuitive to me. Given that I'm having a hard time parsing your response. However if there's some specific setting in there that's not available, that would make sense.

Re: Not OK, Google

#129

Post by tjl »

darklajid wrote: post #79
TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

What I think is interesting is that many of us nerds have probably innocuously fantasized about having a Star Trek-like AI assistant with us, but now that they're taking the first steps towards that, we're starting to realize that in order for it to do everything for us, it has to know everything about us, too.

Has Star Trek even a currency? It always feels like a socialist/communist thing to me. You cannot compare the world's biggest seller of advertisement space with the ST universe. The motivation's aren't aligned: Google/Alphabet want to make sales based on my information. I agree that I found these oh so clever AI fantasies interesting in my youth, still do to a degree. But I always pictured the data being held inacces…

In the original show there wasn't a currency but in order to have aliens who exhibit avarice and the worst part of capitalism they had to include a currency (latinum, I think it was called).

Re: Not OK, Google

#130

Post by usgroup »

mike_ivanov wrote: post #97
usgroup wrote: post #8

Prerequisite to personal AI worth a damn is data about you worth a damn. It'd seem windows 10 is setting Microsoft up for this. Google is following suite with its own hardware. Central task is to infer what you want and help you achieve it, but further, your AI can ask you questions too to work out all sorts of things subtely. i think eventually, we'll think of I personal information as a commodity or "raw material"…

> infer what you want and help you achieve it Where is the border between inferring what I want and deciding (for me) what I want? How about an artificially created tilt toward certain consumer or political brands in the process of inferring what I want?

A great point.
Post reply on HN