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

111–120 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#111

Post by castlecrasher2 »

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?

> Will Google's AI push the fat man onto the tracks?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#112

Post by [deleted] »

rmk wrote: post #103
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.

I'm convinced that Google is touting its' 'principles' with a hackneyed blog post probably written by some PR flack. As an American, I'm disappointed, and positively enraged by the hubris on display here. A bunch of (non-US) employees have pressured Google and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. See this for an alternative viewpoint: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary…

[deleted]

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#113

Post by ajkjk »

rmk wrote: post #103
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.

I'm convinced that Google is touting its' 'principles' with a hackneyed blog post probably written by some PR flack. As an American, I'm disappointed, and positively enraged by the hubris on display here. A bunch of (non-US) employees have pressured Google and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. See this for an alternative viewpoint: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary…

So some people who worked for Google think Google was helping do something that is immoral, and other people agreed, and the collective outrage convinced Google to change their minds. Great, that's how it should work. What else would induce a company to stop doing something immoral, if not outrage?

This applies regardless of whether you think this specific example is immoral.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#114

Post by jadedhacker »

confounded wrote: post #89

This is pretty weak tea. It seems to completely justify working on anything, as long as the tiny part that Google engineers touch is software, and they aren't personally pulling triggers. > 1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate saf…

Was going to say much the same thing, thank you. You said it much better.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#115

Post by exabrial »

Google: We take Pentagon contracts to track people's location with our AI. That's so bad.

Also Google: We will totally use our AI to 'legally' track a single mom that clicked a fine print EULA once while signing into our app. That's totally fine. It's different mmk?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#116

Post by ta0982357 »

rmk wrote: post #103
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.

I'm convinced that Google is touting its' 'principles' with a hackneyed blog post probably written by some PR flack. As an American, I'm disappointed, and positively enraged by the hubris on display here. A bunch of (non-US) employees have pressured Google and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. See this for an alternative viewpoint: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary…

> and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States.

Did I miss something? Was the Selective Service Act amended to extend to corporations, too? Was Google drafted?

Last I checked, cooperation with the United States military has been purely on a volunteer basis since Vietnam.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#117

Post by SahAssar »

gowld wrote: post #107
SahAssar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How is that better than a human solving it? The trolley problem is unsolvable; that's the point.

The point is that it is a philosophical problem, not a technical one. A human will see that it is unsolvable, whereas a machine will probably optimize for unethical or strictly cost-win payoffs without considering the philosophical parts.

I'm not saying the decision will be better when a human makes it, I'm saying it will be more humanely considered.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#118

Post by lev99 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #100
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.

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?

An argument that relays heavily on racial prejudice and emotional appeal is philosophically underdeveloped.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#119

Post by exabrial »

exabrial wrote: post #115

Google: We take Pentagon contracts to track people's location with our AI. That's so bad. Also Google: We will totally use our AI to 'legally' track a single mom that clicked a fine print EULA once while signing into our app. That's totally fine. It's different mmk?

Oh and if you want Google Maps to retain your search history, you have to turn on Global Search History across all Google products. It's impossible to keep a local file on your phone that would have the history in it just for that app. Totally impossible. That data needs to be sent to us.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#120

Post by yarrel »

ryanobjc wrote: post #56
glitchc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 find the idea of Google's leadership being as out of touch and out of control as that would require to be more comforting than the idea that they are responsive to bad PR.

> Let me guess, you don't vote because "all politicians are liars"? How's that working out for you?

Let me guess, you vote for the candidate with the worst track record to prove that you aren't cynical about them. How's that working out for you and Mr. Trump?

Post reply on HN