AI at Google: our principles • Hacker News Board

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#51

Post by DrNuke » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:48 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #45

DrNuke wrote: post #12

I do not know, really... if not them, someone else will do however. Google has a competitive advantage (they can hire & pay well the smartest minds on Earth) and is letting it go? EDIT: going to be even more controversial but needs to be said that Google just can’t stay neutral here imho, they either work for autonomus killing machines or against them in order to preserve their market position and brand

If I don't build these gas chambers, somebody else will, so i might as well pocket the money. You don't see a problem with that position?

I have no competitive advantage to take care of, though.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#52

Post by MarkMMullin » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:50 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #41

>4. Be accountable to people. >We will design AI systems that provide appropriate opportunities for feedback, relevant explanations, and appeal. Our AI technologies will be subject to appropriate human direction and control. Youtube moderation and automated account banning combined with the inability to actually get in contact with a human show they they have a long way to go with this principle.

That is going to be a tough one, and possibly even impossible based on where current ML tech is leading. A laudable goal, but taking a complex system with a training time of many GPU years and asking it how it came up with the answer basically nets a very large pile of numbers (weights) tied together in a complex multidimensional relationship that we just plain can't follow outside of the system. Right now the practical focus is on trying to stop feeding the systems biased data. Your example is spot on, save for the 'not able to talk to someone' which is just googz being too aloof and too cheap

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#53

Post by amaccuish » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:51 PM UTC

Also on this topic, from students who would interview at Google. It's important to hear how the upcoming generation, who would actually be doing this work, feel

https://gizmodo.com/students-pledge-to-refuse-job-interviews... [Students Pledge to Refuse Job Interviews at Google in Protest of Pentagon Work]

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#54

Post by throwaway2048 » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:51 PM UTC

chellam wrote: post #47

ISL wrote: post #4

The best way to lead is by example. Thank you, Googlers. The choice not to accept business is a hard one. I've recently turned away from precision-metrology work where I couldn't be certain of its intent; in every other way, it was precisely the sort of work I'd like to do, and the compensation was likely to be good. These stated principles are very much in line with those that I've chosen; a technology's primary pur…

Turning away will slow things down but AI for military applications will happen. Someone will fill the void.

Inevitable isnt the same thing as right.

After all, everyone inevitably dies, so why not murder them.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#55

Post by EpicEng » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:51 PM UTC

So, I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt if they have a change of heart upon reconsidering an issue, but this coming after the fact rings a bit hollow to me. I think the only principle at play here is that it became a PR issue. That's fine, but let's be honest about it.

Early emails between Google execs framed this project only in terms of revenue and potential PR backlash. As far as we're aware, there was no discussion about the morality of the matter (I'm not taking any moral stance here just to be clear.) Once this became an internal and external PR issue, Google held a series of all hands meetings and claimed that this was a "small project" and that the AI would not be used to kill people. While technically true, those same internal emails show that Google expected this to become a much larger project over time, eventually bringing in about $250M / year[1]. So even then they were being a bit disingenuous by focusing only on the current scope of the deal.

And here we are now with a release from the CEO talking about morality and "principles" well after the fact. I doubt many people do anyway, but I'm not buying the "these are our morals" bit.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/06/01/report-g...

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#56

Post by ryanobjc » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:51 PM UTC

glitchc wrote: post #24

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.

Is there any room in your cynicism for any other view?

For example, maybe Google leadership did hear the complaints, then realized what was happening and what could happen, and decided that something needed to be done to create and uphold values.

I don't approve of defensive cynicism, I don't believe it makes a better world. In fact, I think that defensive cynicism is the reason why the world sucks. Let me guess, you don't vote because "all politicians are liars"? How's that working out for you?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#57

Post by tlb » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

bobcostas55 wrote: post #37

>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

It's true that you can't ever be perfectly fair, for every reasonable definition of fair.

However, you can easily mess up and be very unfair. So even though there is no "perfect", there is still a continuum of bad to good.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#58

Post by throwaway2048 » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

DrNuke wrote: post #51

throwaway2048 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I don't build these gas chambers, somebody else will, so i might as well pocket the money. You don't see a problem with that position?

I have no competitive advantage to take care of, though.

Questions of competitive advantage and profitability should likely be taking a backseat to concerns about autonomous killing machines.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#59

Post by ISL » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

MarkMMullin wrote: post #42

ISL wrote: post #4

The best way to lead is by example. Thank you, Googlers. The choice not to accept business is a hard one. I've recently turned away from precision-metrology work where I couldn't be certain of its intent; in every other way, it was precisely the sort of work I'd like to do, and the compensation was likely to be good. These stated principles are very much in line with those that I've chosen; a technology's primary pur…

That's a pity - as someone in stereo machine vision, metrology is something we really really need for a huge range of applications - that said, if its feeding an autonomous armed targeting system, I agree. We really need to decide as a species we want to continue being a species and realize that solving problems with each other by force is coming to an end. I'm not speaking from a pacifist viewpoint, just a practical…

Agreed regarding surveillance. In my book, working on Landsat, JWST, or LISA = awesome.

I will only direct expertise toward an imaging system like Keyhole or targeting/guidance systems if our society faces a clear and acute foreign threat.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#60

Post by fortythirteen » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

> We want to be clear that while we are not developing AI for use in weapons...

we will be developing AI for things that have weapons attached to them. We hope our lawyerly semantics are enough to fool you rubes for as long as it takes us to pocket that sweet military money.