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

91–100 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#91

Post by killjoywashere »

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…

The emails you're aware of framed it in those terms. Do you think a leaker might selectively leak with the intent to paint a particular picture?

As someone who has helped write policy, it is literally impossible to write up all policy in advance. You always end up weathering some angry insights in the comment section (we used to call it the peanut gallery). If you can write out all policy a priori, every CEO, economist, scientist, and psychologist can just go home now.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#92

Post by londons_explore »

skapadia wrote: post #86

Under "AI applications we will not pursue", its telling that the first rule basically allows them to override all the subsequent ones - "where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks". "We believe" gives them a lot of leeway.

"We believe that AI powered nukes will lead to world peace when nobody dares go up against them, therefore we're going ahead with the project."

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#93

Post by MarkMMullin »

nightski wrote: post #75
MarkMMullin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We will end up with that. Do we want to be as helpless as the people in that video?

I've done work in this space, and my stereo cameras are about to go airborne on Air Swimmers (Bruce the Shark :-) ) in my house. In the movie in the linked document its just looking around my office and showing parallax error - I have an app that lets it track, and I spent an afternoon trying to make it loose me - the only way I won was because I jumped from where I was, crashed into the toolchest, and fell to the floor - it actually tracked me successfully, what defeated it was the fact that I was using cheap servos and it snapped an internal axle on the cheap yaw servo when I hit the toolchest. We are helpless, there is no way around it, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it except realize our survival lies in not going down this road. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/low-cost-high-volume-stereosc...

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#94

Post by confounded »

colossal wrote: post #88
lev99 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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.

It is relatively easy to define good or bad though. Telling black from white isn't hard. The problem is all the shades in between (where the majority of the colours are).

> Telling black from white isn't hard.

Yes. That's kind of the problem.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#95

Post by killjoywashere »

EpicEng wrote: post #63
throwaway2048 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". It's not possible to make all the right policy decisions that are right in hindsight and before a sentinal event occurs. Hindsight bias is always 20/20. Anyone making real decisions of consequence will eventually curse hindsight.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#96

Post by ezrast »

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, "Don't kill anyone or commit any human rights atrocities" isn't exactly a high bar they're setting for themselves - especially when the list of no-nos is immediately followed up with "we're still cool with supporting the military-industrial complex in other ways though". The article isn't really a list of principles so much as a list of PR disasters they'd like to avoid.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#97

Post by donoevilkkkk »

themacguffinman wrote: post #65
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.

"Don't be evil"

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#98

Post by philwelch »

staticassertion wrote: post #49
chellam wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That doesn't make it ok to be the one to fill it.

On a geopolitical level, it does. It's far better for the world that the United States developed atomic weapons before either Germany or the Soviets did.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#99

Post by londons_explore »

davesque wrote: post #82
edhu2017 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my observations in my college, Google is starting to become the new "Microsoft". It is still seen as well paying, and nerdy but it is no longer new and exciting. Facebook is taking over Google's spot as the well established but still exciting tech company, while Airbnb seems to be taking FB's spot as the new and exciting tech company.

I have rather the opposite impression of Facebook. They seem sort of tired and are moving onto the same level as Uber in terms of ethical conduct.

Facebooks business seems to be suffering in various dimensions...

The key figure, minutes of time spent on the site in total, is being warped to include Instagram and Whatsapp, trying to hide the fact that Facebook itself is dying.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#100

Post by oh_sigh »

lev99 wrote: post #35
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?

> - 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.

Am I philosophically underdeveloped if I think it's pretty clear that 20 merchants and shoppers in a souk are the good guys, and the people with suicide vests on are the bad guys?
Post reply on HN