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

321–330 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#321

Post by benatkin »

davesque wrote: post #77

It's good that they're openly acknowledging the misstep here. However, I wish that the "will not pursue" section got the same bold-faced treatment as the one above it. It seems appropriate at this point for industry leaders in this field, and governments, to come together with a set of Geneva-convention-like rules which address the ethical risks inherent in this space.

It certainly leaves the door open. Reminds me of that saying that no ethically trained software engineer would write a DestroyBaghdad procedure, but would write a DestroyCity procedure to chick Baghdad could be passed as a parameter.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#322

Post by zoltaan »

ehsankia wrote: post #317
staticassertion wrote: post #49

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...

I don't get it. Do you suggest that Google or big players make things better than anyone else? Or other way around, small startups cannot make good products? I believe if it was so then only companies starting with 1000+ people could do anything useful, small startups were doomed to fail, also big player could never do wrong. Sounds a bit simplistic and contrary to countless examples from life.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#323

Post by Hroble »

ssijak wrote: post #315
philwelch wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Please tell me what was the last time when China attacked someone across the globe (or anywhere). When was the last time Russia attacked someone across the globe (yes they have wars on their borders, but tell me what would happen if Russia builds the military base in Mexico like NATO does at Russia borders)? Now tell me when was the last year when USA was not in a war? I don`t know how somebody rationalizes deaths of…

Yeah, I'm sure USA would go to war with Mexico, deny it and annex a part of it. Russia has military bases near NATO countries as well. I'm not rationalising USA army interventions but comparing it to Russia in this case is ridiculous.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#324

Post by ehudla »

bduerst wrote: post #261
LambdaComplex wrote: post #244

Earlier 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…

They should use color coded background on key words, using sentiment analysis. Then you could see the contrast without having to read all the headlines. (Though, "beg" here, for example, is positive, while in most contexts it is probably negative.)

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#325

Post by ehudla »

What do you think about the following potential additions?

1. "Pursue legislation and regulation to promote these principles across the industry."

2. "Develop or support the development of AI based tools to help combat, alleviate, the dangers noted in the other principles in products developed by other companies and governments."

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#326

Post by sametmax »

ehsankia wrote: post #314
sametmax wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1. Does Microsoft have written promises that they broke about their past acquisitions? In the case of Skype it's going quite poorly, but as far as I know LinkedIn is running quite independently and is doing well. Nokia again is doing pretty poorly, but Mojang also seems to be doing fine. It's pretty hit an miss, but to be fair, smartphone and communication are pretty hard industries to succeed in.

All the arguments have already been used in the past threads. No use to repeat them here.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#327

Post by a_imho »

the-pigeon wrote: post #168
killjoywashere wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. 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.

Otoh Google tries to claim much more moral highground than they actually have. Insincerity does rub people in the wrong way.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#328

Post by mattlondon »

philwelch wrote: post #98
staticassertion wrote: post #49

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.

> It's far better for the world that the United States developed atomic weapons before either Germany or the Soviets did.

[citation needed]

The US having nuclear weapons didn't work out so well for the 70,000-120,000 innocent civilians that were killed in the attack on Hiroshima.[1] I don't have handy access for how many innocent civilians were killed in Nagasaki but I would assume it was similar.

Would the Nazis have done the same thing? We dont know, and we cant know. But what we do know is that despite the Soviets/Russia, France, UK, China, India, Pakistan and probably Israel and North Korea having the capability, only the US has used nuclear weapons for indiscriminate & wholesale massacre.

So with respect, I really dont think you can go around trumpeting how it was "far better for the world" for this to happen when there is zero evidence to support that viewpoint, and at least 70,000-120,000 reasons to refute it.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#329

Post by ssijak »

Hroble wrote: post #323
ssijak wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me what was the last time when China attacked someone across the globe (or anywhere). When was the last time Russia attacked someone across the globe (yes they have wars on their borders, but tell me what would happen if Russia builds the military base in Mexico like NATO does at Russia borders)? Now tell me when was the last year when USA was not in a war? I don`t know how somebody rationalizes deaths of…

Yeah, I'm sure USA would go to war with Mexico, deny it and annex a part of it. Russia has military bases near NATO countries as well. I'm not rationalising USA army interventions but comparing it to Russia in this case is ridiculous.

Tell that to Kuba when Russia tried to install army equipment there. And USA has about 800 military bases in the whole world outside of USA. Russia has 8 or 9 outside of Russia. USA is spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually just to support those military bases. I know I would be pissed about that if I were a US citizen.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#330

Post by taneq »

staticassertion wrote: post #49
chellam wrote: post #47

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.

Is it better to develop weapons tech for your own in-group, or to risk being on the receiving end of weapons tech that another group developed and against which you can't defend yourself due to your earlier principled stand?
Post reply on HN