AI at Google: our principles • Hacker News Board

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#61

Post by throwaway2048 » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #55

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…

There was a similar "comming to jesus moment" with Google in China. They saw how they had to do the right thing after years of censoring and manipulating data for the chinese government, but only after they got massively hacked, blocked, and essentially forced out of china...

However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#62

Post by foolinaround » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

> Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias.

AI will likely reflect the bias of its training set, which likely reflects the bias of the creators. So, it is fair to say that AI will be biased?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#63

Post by EpicEng » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:58 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #61

EpicEng wrote: post #55

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…

There was a similar "comming to jesus moment" with Google in China. They saw how they had to do the right thing after years of censoring and manipulating data for the chinese government, but only after they got massively hacked, blocked, and essentially forced out of china... However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.

> However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.

Agreed, and I try not to be too hard on them. I don't think it's a black and white issue personally, the only issue I have is how this implies Google always wants to do the right thing from the get go, which very much seems to not be the case here.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#64

Post by ISL » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:58 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.

The only things we can change in life are our own choices.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#65

Post by themacguffinman » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 7:59 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #55

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…

I doubt that Google spelling out their moral stance is intended to convince you right away that they're all good now. It's a public standard that they're setting for themselves. If you think their actions don't match their words, you now have concrete terms and principles to critique and compare with. It's a benchmark to which employees and the public can hold them accountable.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#66

Post by DrNuke » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:00 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #58

DrNuke wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#67

Post by baxtr » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:01 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #61

EpicEng wrote: post #55

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…

There was a similar "comming to jesus moment" with Google in China. They saw how they had to do the right thing after years of censoring and manipulating data for the chinese government, but only after they got massively hacked, blocked, and essentially forced out of china... However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.

> However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.

I'd say it is definitely better than not doing a good thing. For me, the real question is this though: considering there is a pattern here (doing the right thing after doing the wrong thing), do you trust they will do the right thing in the first place next time?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#68

Post by ramblerman » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:01 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

Not sure why you are being downvoted. This is a reasonable sentiment.

It's similar to people who want to lose their accent when learning a language. It's something that is impossible to do, you can't not speak with an accent. The way to lose your accent is to pick a new one, and begin emulating it.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#69

Post by ManFromUranus » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:03 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #61

EpicEng wrote: post #55

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…

There was a similar "comming to jesus moment" with Google in China. They saw how they had to do the right thing after years of censoring and manipulating data for the chinese government, but only after they got massively hacked, blocked, and essentially forced out of china... However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.

Hmm not really. Google is bad and they should feel bad, you're just handwaving away how bad they are because you like them.

Imagine I wanted to have somebody killed and I hired a hitman to kill them and when I go to pay the hitman I accidentally wire the money to the wrong place and inadvertantly pay off the victims mortgage instead of paying the hitman. Now the victim doesn't die and gets their mortgage paid off. I'm not a good guy what I did is not a good thing, I just fucked up, that's all. Had everything gone to plan the guy would be dead and I would be blameless.

Similarly if everything had gone to plan Google AI would now be powering various autonomous murder bots except they realized that they didn't want to be associated with this, not because they have any morals, but because WE DO. They are still bad.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#70

Post by eanzenberg » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #57

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.

Your definition of "fair" is some other groups definition of "unfair". And I'm not even talking about pro- anti- nazis, I'm talking about more mundane leanings.