161–170 of 418 posts
Reminded me of their first principle, and how well they did with that one: "Don't be evil"
Pretty well, all things considered.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/18/google_had_obamas_e...
If that's supposed to be "our best", we're in trouble.
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.
> 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?
Google did not promise to employ utilitarian ideals when deciding if the outcome of a new contract or product is good or bad. They said, "We will not directly aid in killing or harming people."
However, I suspect this vow will invite challenges that question the redistribution of personal data Google aggressively collects to other parties, both advertisers and Orwellian governments. But I'm glad they spoke out nonetheless, since it invites closer scrutiny and upbraiding of the company by eagle-eyed social critics, who are all too often silent or ignored on these issues.
>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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wh…
The whole idea of “protecting the national insterests” of the US creeps me out, as that to me usually means oppressing others, interfering with democracy in foreign countries, and generally sacrificing people outside the US to maintain the global hegemony we promote. I can tell you see it differently, but I hope you see that not all people see promoting “US government interests” as an automatically good thing, given…
I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees and privilege their interest over that of the nation (his nation). Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
But Google has no intention of doing the right thing anymore than Microsoft or Disney does. These are corporations and their executives HAVE to do what they think will be best for the corporation. Not what they think is best for mankind.
This is how for profit businesses currently work. And PR saying anything to the contrary is simply not true.
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.
Maybe it would be better for the world for Switzerland to have the most advanced AI. Why does it need to be the US, especially in the rapidly deteriorating political climate from the past 2 decades?
No, that's machine learning. AI is intelligence demonstrated by machines, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it learns or adapts.