AI at Google: our principles • Hacker News Board

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#121

Post by exabrial » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #119

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.

Which we forgot to mention when you turn that on we begin recording your location history.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#122

Post by CydeWeys » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

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?

This comment comes off as intentionally disingenuous to me.

In the latter case, it's about serving up ads.

In the former case, it's literally about assassinating people from the sky.

They really are different.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#123

Post by TaylorAlexander » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

The principles state that they will not make weapons. However the latest report I’ve seen states that their current contract for the military ends some time in 2019. [1]

So while google says it will not make weapons, it seems that for the next 6-18 months it will continue to do so.

Does anyone know when in 2019 the contact expires? It seems odd to come out with a pledge not to make weapons while continuing to make weapons (assuming that is what they are doing).

(Full disclosure, I am a contractor at an Alphabet company, but I don’t know much about project Maven. These are my own opinions.)

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/1/17418406/google-maven-dron...

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#124

Post by knuththetruth » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:51 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…

Google’s disregard for the ethics of the arrangement is further supported by this interview with one of the Googlers who organized the resistance to this project:

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military...

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#125

Post by sethbannon » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:52 PM UTC

Love this leadership from Jeff Dean and the team at Google AI. Technology can be an incredible lever for positive change, but can just as easily be a destructive force. Always import to think principally about how to ensure the former is the case and not the latter.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#126

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:52 PM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #123

The principles state that they will not make weapons. However the latest report I’ve seen states that their current contract for the military ends some time in 2019. [1] So while google says it will not make weapons, it seems that for the next 6-18 months it will continue to do so. Does anyone know when in 2019 the contact expires? It seems odd to come out with a pledge not to make weapons while continuing to make we…

I believe it continues through March 2019.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#127

Post by debt » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:53 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 noticed there was one particularly phrase missing from Apple's WWDC this year: artificial intelligence.

It wasn't mentioned one time. Never in the presentations, none of the talk titles had it included either.

Machine Learning was mentioned and Apple also released many updates related to it, but never did they call it artificially intelligent, or use the phrase artificial intelligence. Not a single time. Go ahead and watch it if you haven't already. They'll never say those words.

Pretty remarkable considering it was a developer conference, I wonder why?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#128

Post by briandear » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

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.

You actually are implying that there are no bad guys? Under no standard of humanity would ISIS or the Taliban be confused for good guys. There are a lot of grey areas in the world for sure, but acting like badness is just a matter of opinion is ridiculous. There is evil in the world.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#129

Post by briandear » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:54 PM UTC

lev99 wrote: post #118

oh_sigh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A suicide vest isn’t racially prejudiced. Identifying those that are wearing them isn’t an emotional appeal.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#130

Post by testvox » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 8:54 PM UTC

ksk wrote: post #72

themacguffinman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Historically has anyone succeeded in holding such giant firms accountable to their own stated principles? At the moment, I like those principles more than I like Google.

One example I can think of is private colleges. Many in the US have made public statements dedicating themselves to uphold principles like freedom of speech. Organizations like FIRE do a pretty good job holding them accountable to those principles and there are many instances in which they have documentated policy or enforcement changes made due to their activism.