311–320 of 418 posts
> We believe that AI should: > > 1. Be socially beneficial. > 2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. > 3. Be built and tested for safety. > 4. Be accountable to people. > 5. Incorporate privacy design principles. > 6. Uphold high standards of scientific excellence. > 7. Be made available for uses that accord with these principles. While I like this list a lot, I don't understand why this is AI-specific, and no…
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.
For them, it's always better to benefit from screwing up. If you don't get caught, yay ! If you do, apologize, wait a bit, and send your PR team go their magic. Bim, you are green again.
Why would they do otherwise if they can keep the loot and face little consequences ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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. Did you even read up on this story because that is essentially what they tried to do and it backfired?
I read that the 'contract was routed through' some front-company. I don't think that was separate company staffed with people to adapt google AI to this purpose.
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.
Given how a lot of people don't hold Microsoft accountable for past misdeeds (the 4 last posts about github acquisition are endless arguments about it), there is few reasons to believe it's going to be different with google. For them, it's always better to benefit from screwing up. If you don't get caught, yay ! If you do, apologize, wait a bit, and send your PR team go their magic. Bim, you are green again. Why woul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just claim something like that as if it was a fact. 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?
If e.g. France was willing to step up, and had a flourishing tech industry and a track record of responsible global leadership, that would be great. They seem to have their shit together slightly better than the US does, at this point. But, even at our worst, the US is a better custodian of this kind of power than either China or Russia, and those are the only two other countries that would be remotely interested in…
I don`t know how somebody rationalizes deaths of millions of civilians caused by USA/NATO army/interventions, which acted in non-defense, but I for sure know that they would not rationalize it anymore if they would happen to be on the receiving and of "democratization".
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…
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 th…
The point is that in any discussion, both sides have biases, and you need to take both sides into consideration to get a fuller picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turning away will slow things down but AI for military applications will happen. Someone will fill the void.
That doesn't make it ok to be the one to fill it.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/7/15933554/george-hotz-hacki...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An autonomous car must decide at every moment whether to brake, accelerate, swerve left, swerve right, or do nothing. Otherwise the car is not very autonomous. :) If it senses an unavoidable collusion ahead, it will need to choose from possible reactions that each have different consequences for the various people and property. Someone has to program or train the car what to value when choosing its reaction. The car…
If you make the car flip a coin (perhaps a weighted coin, on the strength of the belief in its sensor data), you avoid providing a solution to the trolley problem. Alternatively, you can have the people vote on a self-driving car referendum, which specifies a DMV-enforced policy for the trolley problem. As a society we vote on such matters all the time. Nothing new here.
MIT created an online survey called the Moral Machine asking people to choose who a car should hit in various (randomized and user-created) scenarios. Data like that could be used to train a "fair" AI. It's an interesting thought experiment but the survey's scenarios are unrealistic and include information that a car AI would not have available, e.g. person A is homeless and has no children while person B is a wealthy executive in good health.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make it ok to be the one to fill it.
Would you rather use Google self-driving car, or one made by a random hacker start-up[0]? Similarly, would you rather your military use AI from a low tier company? https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/7/15933554/george-hotz-hacki...