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

281–290 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#281

Post by rmk »

cromwellian wrote: post #264
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…

I’m a US employee and I’m opposed to it. I’m not what you mean by ‘reigned in’, you mean you want the US government to nationalize companies who don’t want to work on military contracts and force their workers to build weapons? don’t worry, The DoD will get their AI weapons, image recognition with machine learning is a commodity now, and some other company will end up doing it.

It doesn't have to be that drastic. Plenty of other companies do this kind of stuff. See for example, Boeing. It has a separate Commercial Airplanes division. Plenty of technology sharing happens between the Military arm of Boeing and the DoD. I imagine that people who object to military use of their work could find a happy home on the commercial side and vice versa.

My point is, where there is a will, there is a way. Individual rights are sacrosanct, corporations', not so much (or at least, they need to be incentivized to work in the national interest).

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#282

Post by orangecat »

lev99 wrote: post #194
briandear wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Forget "inherently" good or bad. It's entirely possible that the guy in the vest isn't a morally horrible person; he may have been brainwashed since birth and genuinely believe that his actions will bring about a better world. Still, he intends to kill himself and as many other people as possible, and if I have the ability to cause the only death to be his, I'm doing that every time.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#283

Post by nolemurs »

themacguffinman wrote: post #65
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 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.

> It's a public standard that they're setting for themselves.

I'd like to really draw attention to the "for themselves" part here. Yes, this is a public document, and of course it serves a PR purpose, but the function of setting the terms for internal discussion at Google is at least as important.

I think that since most people aren't Google employees, they tend to focus on the PR angle of this, but I don't even think that's the primary motivation.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#284

Post by rmk »

mrep wrote: post #280
rmk wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of America's many follies and villainous acts in support of misguided notions. It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world. I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees…

> 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). He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that. They knew it would be bad PR but they wanted to make money so they took the contract initially and tried to keep it quite. Then, all the leaks happened causing…

> He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that.

That's the real nub. I'd posit that this is also about keeping a small but vocal group of employees happy. However, why did Google effectively disavow all cooperation with the military to appease this group? They could have easily set up a division and staffed it with willing people. Or Alphabet the parent company could have started something else up (how costly is it to incorporate, really?). Looks like none of these things was even given serious consideration.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#286

Post by rmk »

joshuamorton wrote: post #276
rmk wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here we have a difference of opinion. I strongly believe corporations are less accountable to the general public than individuals or (democratic) Government, including the Military. I simply do not believe in corporate personhood. I do think there is a large distinction between individuals and corporations, and corporations, on the whole behave much more unethically and can wreak much more havoc than individuals. The…

>I simply do not believe in corporate personhood. I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that. Further, in your post that started this subthread, you stated >It's high time these companies are regulated and their malfeasance reined in by t…

> I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that.

It does. A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing. There is no direct conflict with individuals' rights. So sure, Google the corporation can be compelled to do this without affecting individuals. It's quite common in other industries, but of course, for SV, it's all about the hubris, optics and innate sense of superiority.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#287

Post by UncleEntity »

rmk wrote: post #272
Daishiman wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world. Ha. Ha ha. Hahahah. Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake…

> Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests? I will! Which country came to the aid of Britain, and all those Western European nations when they were faced with the existential threat of Nazism? Which country has provided refuge and solace to more oppressed…

Well, technically, we didn't fight a violent war to rid ourselves of slavery -- as hard as the history book try to push that view.

Slavery died out pretty much everywhere else in the world without bloodshed so it's pretty safe to assume the US wouldn't have been different in that regard, the freeing of the slaves was more of a punitive action against the seceding states than anything else.

Anyhoo, my point being that it isn't a grand example of American exceptionalism. Much better to just link to Kevin Kline's A Fish Called Wanda rant...

And why doesn't my iPhone know how to spellcheck "slavery", are we trying to remove it from the language double-plus fast?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#288

Post by joshuamorton »

rmk wrote: post #286
joshuamorton wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I simply do not believe in corporate personhood. I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that. Further, in your post that started this subthread, you stated >It's high time these companies are regulated and their malfeasance reined in by t…

> I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that. It does. A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing. There is no direct conflict with indi…

>It's quite common in other industries

In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology?

>A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing.

So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#289

Post by svat »

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…

• At first there was no explicit policy.

• A decision was taken (contract entered into).

• As part of the backlash to that decision, one of the demands was that an explicit policy be created.

• That demand was accepted, and what you see here is the outcome.

(Sorry for the passive voice….)

That's all there is to it; I don't see a claim anywhere that the article reflects anyone's principles or morals in the past, only that this is a (only now thought-out) policy on how to decide about similar things in the future (“So today, we’re announcing seven principles to guide our work going forward”).

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#290

Post by erikpukinskis »

I think the avoidance of harm is fundamentally flawed. Creation necessitates destruction. At times safety necessitates assault. Violence can not be eradicated we can only strive to maximize our values.

Anyone who claims to be non-violent has simply rationalized ignorance of their violence. See: vegans. (spoken as someone who eats a plant based diet)

Post reply on HN