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

131–140 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#131

Post by chillydawg »

evilmushroom wrote: post #105
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…

And now someone else will easily pick up the contract, and Google loses any ability at all to influence it. Perhaps they could have reduced civilian casualities more so than whoever picks it up.

My crack selling business is the safest, too!

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#132

Post by RyanZAG »

philwelch wrote: post #98
staticassertion wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a good point, and if anybody thinks an arms race isn't already happening then they are very naive. While we're debating the morals of this, the Chinese, Russians and many others are trying to make it happen. For all we know, they may have already succeeded, and we're discussing the morals of it while it's already in full production a few thousand miles away.

The relevant research papers, knowledge and skills are widely available across the world. There are some advanced courses at Chinese universities right now that can only be seen as 'AI for military'.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#133

Post by rmk »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #110
rmk wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Certainly many US employees were against it. Also Google is a global organization. I don’t believe that corporations should primarily serve the interests of their government, they should serve their users and reflect the attitudes of their employees.

I'm sure many US employees were against it, and they were rightfully exercising their voice.

Google may have offices all over the world, but it's an American company, and like people (Corporations are like people, no?), it must be held responsible for its actions.

I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them.

Surely a company with such high morals and ethics should easily withstand regulation and public scrutiny that protects the national interests of the country that's responsible for the majority of its profits, and provided the fertile ground from which it sprang to life.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#134

Post by EpicEng »

killjoywashere wrote: post #91
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, economi…

>Do you think a leaker might selectively leak with the intent to paint a particular picture?

Possibly. As I said "...that we're aware of." Anything beyond what we know is speculation. This is the information I have available. Let me ask you this; if there was real debate and concern beforehand, why is it only now that Google has decided to back out?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#135

Post by randcraw »

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.

Probably someone else will do the dirty deed, but now 1) it won't be Google, and 2) it'll be someone willing to do more evil than Google.

That said, your argument does not avoid complicity in behaving badly or potentially doing so. It says only, "I'm a shit, but I'm willing to be a shit because there are other shitty people in the world who will behave badly even if I behave well, so I choose to behave badly because it serves me and the outcome is probably the same either way."

Of course, if your business partners adopt the same Machiavellian philosophy toward you that you espouse, one day they'll probably speak those very words when they turn against you, since someone else probably would have.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#136

Post by iainmerrick »

killjoywashere wrote: post #91
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, economi…

If they really believed this stuff, I don’t see why they would have had so many resignations over the issue. Had somebody brought up the ethical aspects when the project was being discussed, they wouldn’t be scrambling to limit the damage now.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#137

Post by jillesvangurp »

As much as I appreciate the conflict of interest here between doing good, making money, helping the US government do its thing, and simply chickening out for PR reasons; I'd like to provide a few sobering thoughts. AI and misappropriation by governments, foreign nations, and worse is going to happen. We might not like it but that cat has long been out of the bag. So, the right attitude is not to decline to do the research and pretend it is not happening but to make sure it ends up in the right hands and is done on the right terms. Google, being at the forefront of research here, has a heavy responsibility to both do well and good.

I don't believe Google declining to weaponize AI, which lets face it is what all this posturing is about, would be helpful at all. It would just lead to somebody else doing the same, or worse. There's some advantage to being involved: you can set terms, drive opinions, influence legislation, and dictate roadmaps. The flip side is of course that with great power comes great responsibility.

I grew up in a world where 1984 was science fiction and then became science fact. I worry about ubiquitous surveillance, un-escapable AI driven life time camera surveillance, and worse. George Orwell was a naive fool compared to what current technology enables right now. That doesn't mean we should shy away from doing the research. Instead make sure that those cameras are also pointed at those most likely to abuse their privileges. That's the only way to keep the system in check. The next best thing to preventing this from happening is rapidly commodotizing the technology so that we can all keep tabs on each other. So, Google: do the research and continue to open source your results.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#138

Post by ryandrake »

MarkMMullin wrote: post #85
leereeves wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia reportedly has armed robots capable of operating autonomously and they preemptively refused to honor any ban, and other nations are developing their own. As terrifying as the prospect is, it's already happening.

Yes. I can only refuse to play and hope the Russians et al come to their senses, the United Nations starts to work better, etc. If we go down that road, it will be the end of most of us, if not all of us. We really have no chance against a machine that's decided to shoot us. As a species we need to have zero tolerance for it - we won't be rendered extinct by snazzy terminators, we'll be killed by the 21st century ver…

That’s the problem with mutually assured destruction weapons (which AI bots most surely qualify as). If you accept as a given that at least one faction is building them, then the other factions’ only choices are: 1. Build your own and pray for a Cold War stalemate and 2. Don’t build your own and guarantee you’ll be destroyed.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#140

Post by Mononokay »

sctb wrote: post #43
Mononokay wrote: post #10

"Principles"

You've been posting a lot of unsubstantive comments. Could you please try to increase the amount of information? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sure thing; going into the future I'll make sure to; and sorry for breaking guidelines a bit.

I was thinking I should probably take a break from HN until the current news cycle's run its course (way too many things happening that I'm tempted to reply with one-liners to; works on Twitter, doesn't work here), and should have went with my intuition + will now.

Post reply on HN