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

AI at Google: our principles

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#21

Post by GenerocUsername »

ironjunkie wrote: post #11
Isamu wrote: post #6

> AI applications we will not pursue [...] Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. [...] Weapons or other technologies This statement will have zero impact on subsequent sensational headlines or posters here claiming Google is making killbots.

Well, now you are talking about philosophical questions. - Is pursuing an AI that kills 10 bad guys but saves 20 good ones overall bad? - Is pursuing an AI that doesn't kill anyone but pushes us to watch ads and lose our life on youtube overall bad?

- Yes : Directly responsible for death. AI is likely not the only means to have stopped those 'bad-guys'.

- Depends : How humans choose to spend their lives is their own issue. Personal responsibility dictates it is each individuals choice how to live their lives. Youtube is not some resource needed for life.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#22

Post by MarkMMullin »

ironjunkie wrote: post #11
Isamu wrote: post #6

> AI applications we will not pursue [...] Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. [...] Weapons or other technologies This statement will have zero impact on subsequent sensational headlines or posters here claiming Google is making killbots.

Well, now you are talking about philosophical questions. - Is pursuing an AI that kills 10 bad guys but saves 20 good ones overall bad? - Is pursuing an AI that doesn't kill anyone but pushes us to watch ads and lose our life on youtube overall bad?

We only call it AI - creating an autonomous ML system that is designed to kill anyone can lead to us all being killed by math and plastic - it's a singularly bad idea, so much so there is no scoring mechanism that justifies it - too much chance we end up with this -- https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#23

Post by foobaw »

finnthehuman wrote: post #18

>2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. They DO realize that the YouTube recommendation algorithm is a political bias reinforcement machine, right? Like, I think it’s fun to talk trash on google because they’re in an increably powerful position, but this one isn’t even banter.

They circumvent this by using the word "avoid." Avoiding and not doing are two different things.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#24

Post by glitchc »

juliend2 wrote: post #5

> Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. > We want to be clear that while we are not developing AI for use in weapons, we will continue our work with governments and the military in many other areas. These include cybersecurity, training, military recruitment, veterans’ healthcare, and search and rescue. I wonder if this is an offic…

I concur. This post seems to be specifically targeting the negative perception the resignations were generating.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#26

Post by paulgpetty »

So was the “Don’t be evil” principle or mantra that we’re all disappointed about documented in a blog post? For some reason I thought it was on a page like this: https://www.google.com/about/our-commitments/

Either way it’s just a statement on a webpage which has all the permanence of a sign in their HQ lobby. It’s going to be hard to convince people that statements like this from a Google, a Facebook, or an Uber really mean anything — especially long term.

Will their next leadership team or CEO carry on with this?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#27

Post by alehul »

fredley wrote: post #19
ironjunkie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, now you are talking about philosophical questions. - Is pursuing an AI that kills 10 bad guys but saves 20 good ones overall bad? - Is pursuing an AI that doesn't kill anyone but pushes us to watch ads and lose our life on youtube overall bad?

Can you really build an AI that can identify bad guys? What if it's a good guy in the wrong uniform?

I think the argument is more so that the military killing 'bad guys' will protect 'good guys' in America long-term, if not civilians local to the country in question.

Not commenting on whether that's accurate; just trying to better articulate what I believe is the above poster's philosophical argument.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#28

Post by John_KZ »

DrNuke wrote: post #17
fatjokes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google's point isn't that it can't be done, or even that it shouldn't be done, but rather simply they won't do it.

Ok but what if it does not make sense from a business perspective in the mid or long term?

If Google renews defense contracts, I'm going to simply pull the plug, and I suspect many more will follow. Changing your email address is hard, but the bulk of the task will be over in a few hours.

If financial sense is the only reason, then still yes. Why? Google works for the military, gets a bad rep, usage plummets. It's not unheard of before.

Of course they might renew the contracts secretly (and I'm afraid they might) but secret work is more expensive and hard to keep secret for long at large scales.

Also, looking at the very long term: Making killbots creates instability which creates war which damages the purchase power of their users which creates less profits for the shareholders.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#29

Post by inlined »

ruseOps wrote: post #15

“Hey Google, give me three concrete examples of fair bias.”

Maybe people who had certain training or education will perform better for a particular job function. There might be biases affecting who gets into a school, but from a set of Stanford grads maybe certain courses, professors, or a cohort could be learned to be ideal candidates.

[Note: I work at Google but have no insight into AI projects]

Post reply on HN