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

31–40 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#31

Post by gimmefreedom »

foobaw wrote: post #23
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.

    avoid |əˈvoid|
    
    verb
    
    keep away from or stop oneself from doing (something)
Instead, I think Google just doesn't mind lying[1].

1. e.g., "Don't be evil"

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#32

Post by ucaetano »

paulgpetty wrote: post #26

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 rea…

Don't be evil is on the Code of Conduct:

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#33

Post by SahAssar »

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?

I don't know about you, but I know that I do not want an AI "solving" the trolley problem in real world situations.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#34

Post by hooande »

The military is using open source software to sort images, with consulting help from Google. No killbots, no acts of war, just doing the only thing that machine learning has any practical use for.

Science fiction writing is hard. I don't know why all of you are doing it for no pay. We can't judge Google for what we think they might do. And so far, they're just using ml in the real world

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#35

Post by lev99 »

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?

> - Is pursuing an AI that kills 10 bad guys but saves 20 good ones overall bad?

- Yes. If your philosophical development is to the point where there are clearly defined good guys and bad guys in your mind I suggest you read more.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#36

Post by whazor »

But how? Let's assume I personally offer artificial intelligence services. So I provide some API's where my customers upload training and testing data, and I return a trained ML model. I do not know who uses my service or what they are doing...

Furthermore, if ban the military. Then another company could do it for them. So every customer would have to explain their activities?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#37

Post by bobcostas55 »

>Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias.

I recommend _The impossibility of “fairness”: a generalized impossibility result for decisions_[0] and _Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores_[1]

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#39

Post by ergothus »

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.

FWIW, since they updated the google news algorithm, I've started getting a pretty diverse set of results. It might be because it picked up that I try to read opposing views, or it might be because the algorithm is terrible, or any other number of reasons, but regardless of the source it's refreshing to see.

...and revealing! The headlines differences between, say, Washington Post, CNN, The Hill, and Fox News for the same news blurb is even more dramatic than I'd expect when you put them up side-by-side.

None of which contradicts your point, I just wanted to flag a happy instance where the result wasn't just "yo dawg".

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#40

Post by lev99 »

SahAssar wrote: post #33
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?

I don't know about you, but I know that I do not want an AI "solving" the trolley problem in real world situations.

It's unavoidable. Let's say a self driving car realizes that it is on an unavoidable collusion course, but changes in it's behavior (steering) will change where it collides. That's the trolley problem.
Post reply on HN