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

191–200 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#191

Post by randcraw »

mtgx wrote: post #161
beaner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty well, all things considered.

3 antitrust cases in the EU (Shopping, Android, and Adsense), and a couple of FTC antitrust cases im the US (one of which Eric Schmidt lobbied away through Obama) say otherwise. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/18/google_had_obamas_e... If that's supposed to be "our best", we're in trouble.

Antitrust isn't about committing a crime so much as competing so well that the the company sucks the oxygen from the room. Becoming a monopoly isn't evil. It's an excess of success.

It's the responsibility of government antitrust law, not Google, to 'un-distort' the playing field and resurrect competition / opportunity. No one expects a corporation to voluntarily give away marketshare to ensure it doesn't run afoul of antitrust law, just because the company also vowed not to be evil. A negotiated settlement with regulators is exactly where this kind of matter should lead; no crime done.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#192

Post by Aunche »

iainmerrick wrote: post #136
killjoywashere wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A few people resigned and they're trying to limit the damage because people like being outraged at things that don't matter. It's the same thing that got James Damore fired.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#193

Post by rmk »

rmk wrote: post #174
joshuamorton wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be suggesting that the government should be able to compel corporations (and thus their employees, ie. normal people) to work on military technology. That sounds antithetical to a lot of freedoms that we hold dear as Americans. >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. How…

"Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" Google, an already known to be duplicitous company, changed its policy to maintain its workforce at the expense of US national interests . That's certainly something to be wary about, as a member of the public.

People should never be compelled to work on producing weapons or munitions, except in times of war.

Google, specifically, like Facebook, should be invited to explain itself and generally describe its activities a bit more transparently for the public to see. At this point Google is effectively a utility, so there's plenty of good reasons to regulate it like one. Right now, it has benefited from almost no oversight and has grown a bit too cocky and self-righteous. Silicon Valley CEOs need to be cut down to size. Almost no other industry has this level of smugness and self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people.

Here is a quote by Louis Brandeis, an erstwhile Justice of the Supreme Court, that pretty much captures what I have to say: Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#194

Post by lev99 »

briandear wrote: post #129
lev99 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The identification of a person wearing a suicide vest isn't a racial or emotional problem.

Declaring that a person wearing a suicide vest in an Arab market is inherently bad does play on racial prejudice and emotional appeal. It's impossible to separate that statement from a decade and a half of propaganda, and the trauma caused by the numerous suicide attacks on civilians in the western.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#197

Post by giobox »

ISL wrote: post #172
qbaqbaqba wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US were the only one to use atomic weapons on a already defeated enemy/at all.

The Japanese were hardly already defeated. Had the bombs not been dropped, the United States would have invaded Japan directly, island by island, until the country surrendered. The loss of life on both sides would have been tremendous. Source: My grandfather had orders to go and do exactly that when the dropping of the bombs ended the war.

This is of course one of the justifications American leaders used, and as always the victor gets to set the perceived historical narrative. Politically it was extremely important for the US to believe the bomb materially shortened the war given the huge amount of resources the Manhattan Project had consumed that otherwise could have been invested elsewhere in the war effort, especially when the military had to justify the incredible expense to Congress (adjusted for inflation the total cost is around 30 billion in 2018 dollars). I've recently been reading the excellent "The Making of The Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes which covers the events of this period in much detail.

The US had already been ridiculously effective using firebombing to level Japanese cities with their B-29s - so much so, they actually had to consider slowing down/changing targets to leave enough behind to use the Atomic Bomb on: there was almost nothing left worth hitting in strategic terms. By the time the bomb was dropped Japan was largely a beaten nation already considering surrender, Tokyo a smoldering rubble pile save for the Imperial Palace.

"The bomb simply had to be used -- so much money had been expended on it. Had it failed, how would we have explained the huge expenditure? Think of the public outcry there would have been... The relief to everyone concerned when the bomb was finished and dropped was enormous." - AJP Taylor.

Of course no one can say with certainty, but I certainly don't consider the answer to this question to be a simple one.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#198

Post by knuththetruth »

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.

Arguably, the Googlers who stopped Maven just did. Labor organization is the one of the few checks on this level of corporate power.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#200

Post by marricks »

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…

Why would your default stance be to believe a company over a leaker?

The company has millions to gain from the contract and hasn’t shown morals on this issue.

The leaker has so much to lose by releasing the documents, everything from their career to a significant portion of their life. You could call that incentive to deceive, but I call it incentive to be just about their leak.

Especially when it’d be so easy for the company to leak counter examples showing moral consideration if they did...

Post reply on HN