[deleted]
AI at Google: our principles
301–310 of 418 posts
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#302Several comments don't seem to understand what the "unfair bias" mentioned is. It doesn't have anything to do with censoring your favorite conservative search result. The machine learning "bias", at least the low hanging fruit, is learning things like "doctor == male", or "black face = gorilla". How fair is it that facial recognition or photo algorithms are trained on datasets of white faces or not tested for adversa…
It's definitely a problem worth alleviating. But it is "triggering" because it is an open problem to determine whether a bias is harmful, even for human beings. So it becomes an impossible/unreasonable amount of extra work if you demand it as a prerequisite.
For example, in your translation tool example, even a human translator would have trouble making the least offensive translation possible. She/he/(insert favorite pronoun here) would need to realize the audience is a young impressionable child who is about to base her entire world-view on whether there's statistically more of her gender in that one sentence of translation.
For a machine learning algorithm to understand enough about human nature to not offend the parent of that child, you're better off waiting for AGI that can surpass human tact.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And I can almost guarantee that, unlike the US, the Russian and Chinese militarized AI programs are not optimized for minimizing civilian casualties.
Really? Looking at drone strike causualities you’d have no clue how much the US even tries.
Its funny cause I haven’t heard of large scale Chinese or Russian drones flying over other countries targeting terrorists but ending up murdering children on more than one occasion.
Perhaps these technologies can be just evil and the US is the only country powerful enough to get away with using them.
I really have no stomach for just a vapid excuse, and I cannot fathom how so many people fall for it.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#304Several comments don't seem to understand what the "unfair bias" mentioned is. It doesn't have anything to do with censoring your favorite conservative search result. The machine learning "bias", at least the low hanging fruit, is learning things like "doctor == male", or "black face = gorilla". How fair is it that facial recognition or photo algorithms are trained on datasets of white faces or not tested for adversa…
It's definitely a problem worth alleviating. But it is "triggering" because it is an open problem to determine whether a bias is harmful, even for human beings. So it becomes an impossible/unreasonable amount of extra work if you demand it as a prerequisite. For example, in your translation tool example, even a human translator would have trouble making the least offensive translation possible. She/he/(insert favorit…
You don't think a black person trying to use a photo management app and having their children's photos miscategorized as gorillas is harmful?
We know what biases people say offend them already, there's no evidence fixing them is harmful, but a non-zero risk that not fixing them is harmful.
I feel like what I'm encountering is a conservative bias against changing the status quo, "social engineering", and the like. It seems people don't like deliberate, non-organic, changes to the status quo (well, they don't tend to like organic ones either, like succeeding generations becoming say, more sexually liberal)
Machine learning can create filter bubbles, echo chambers, feedback loops, and people may attribute more weight to answers provided by machines than people, and so having machine learning reinforce even more strongly, current cultural biases that we're already seeking politically to ameliorate seems prudent and pragmatic to try and balance.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology?
The canonical example is the early days of aerospace, where for all practical purposes you were developing military technology.
> 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?
The government can already compel you to license your work via eminent domain. There's an established process for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_(United_...
At any point of time there are always a slew of 'sensitive technologies' whose use and development will be closely monitored and companies are incentivized, severely restricted, or outright barred from freely trafficking in them. It's not a giant leap of the imagination that they will be forced to do the federal govt's bidding if they already do a large amount of business with them or have started out with military IP.
'Internet-related technologies' is not one of them. There was a time when supercomputers were in this category, then it was cryptography, and now it's looking like AI.
BTW, Cisco and a few others have been forced to develop 'lawful intercept' technologies on their routers for the three-letter agencies for years, I think. There was a big controversy about this a few years ago.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The headlines differences between, say, Washington Post, CNN, The Hill, and Fox News for the same news blurb is even more dramatic than I'd expect when you put them up side-by-side. Can you give a concrete example of this? I'm definitely interested in seeing how big the differences are
It's pretty evident if you just look. I literally just grabbed some headlines off the North Korea Summit topic: - WaPo : Trump dangles White House visit for North Korea’s Kim if summit goes well - Fox News : Trump forced Kim Jong Un to 'beg' for meeting, Giuliani says - CNN : How is Donald Trump preparing for the huge North Korea summit? He's not. - Reuters : Latte art and a gym ad: Kim Jong Un's softer image in Sout…
Wow, this really is dramatic and telling!
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
MAD was based on the concept of the 'Nuclear Club' - the barrier to entry was the mass defect ratio, which you'd have to calculate on your own, and then you'd confront nation-state level expenses of turning that knowledge into practical engineering. It had an inherent cap on the number of possible players. Not saying it was nice, it was just manageable. The barriers to entry here are much lower. For smaller players,…
I guess my point is (and it looks like we agree): good luck getting all billion+ people on the planet with a credit card to agree that building a kill bot is a bad idea. All it takes is for one of those people to disagree, build them, and then we all must have them.
[deleted]
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#308Some time ago, the π day... I become aware of the following. Sadly I totally agree with the "trend" :(
"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."
-- Stephen Hawking
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#309AI can and will be used to cause harm. I hope this doesn't cause US huge disadvantage against other nations like China where govt has more control and access to AI.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#310In a way, the engineers who quit Google had some part in this success. Would it be unwise for Google to reach out to them?