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

361–370 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#361

Post by ManFromUranus »

EpicEng wrote: post #158
ManFromUranus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm not really. Google is bad and they should feel bad, you're just handwaving away how bad they are because you like them. Imagine I wanted to have somebody killed and I hired a hitman to kill them and when I go to pay the hitman I accidentally wire the money to the wrong place and inadvertantly pay off the victims mortgage instead of paying the hitman. Now the victim doesn't die and gets their mortgage paid off. I'…

>Imagine I wanted to have somebody killed and I hired a hitman to kill them and when I go to pay the hitman I accidentally wire the money to the wrong place and inadvertantly pay off the victims mortgage instead of paying the hitman. Now the victim doesn't die and gets their mortgage paid off. I'm not a good guy what I did is not a good thing, I just fucked up, that's all. That's an odd analogy considering the the wo…

Not comparing googles actions to murder specifically, that's simply you not being able to see the forest for the trees. The only reason they wrote the article is to make it seem like what they did was a proactive moral choice when in reality it was a retroactive action to frame their realization that in supplying AI for the DoD murder bots they would be part of the evil empire. I mean it's literally twisty mustache tier lack of scruples.

They didn't fess up because they realize that the outcome of their actions woudl be bad, they fess up because YOU realize that the outcome of their actions would be bad.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#362

Post by acobster »

Applications they will not pursue include those "that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms." That's some fancy gymnastics there, Mr. Pichai. Well played.

I was wondering how or if they were going to address this. It saddens me to see that Google considers collecting as much data as possible about all its users to maximize ad revenue an international norm. It saddens me more to see that they're correct.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#363

Post by RyanZAG »

simion314 wrote: post #339
RyanZAG wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever end up in a war with China, you'll be seeing plenty of drones. Obviously China doesn't use drones for killing terrorists - China doesn't kill terrorists because terrorists have no way to get into China in the first place.

So if China does X US can do it too, also if China could do X but we do not know for sure then US can also do X. Using this logic then US can do anything with the exception of the things you are 100% sure China(or insert other country here) is not and will not do it. This means surveillance, killer robots, black magic,genetically enhanced humans, illegal experiments and procedures, is a valid tool for US because "wha…

Not so, nobody forces anybody to compete in an arms race. My point is that there is an arms race - and inventions such as AI for war are part of that arms race and are being developed. These are very easy inventions too, given the widely available and extremely powerful software and hardware. These are facts. No amount of upsetting moral arguments make the arms race go away.

The question is: should America compete in the arms race? I don't know. But there are big consequences either way.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#364

Post by jpadkins »

the-pigeon wrote: post #217
zaphar wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a gross generalization that people trot out as if it were unassailable but never back it up with any support. Corporations are run by people with a complex set of motivations and constraints in which they make decisions. Some of them make decisions with intent to harm. Some make decisions with intent to help. No one person is automatically turned into a ruthless amoral person just be being employed at a corpo…

It gets complicated but it's more about the employees responsibility to shareholders. Not their personal morals. https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/3pv8bh/is_it_really_tr...

Google public shareholders do not have control of the company. Larry, Sergey, and Eric are the only shareholders who matter. So executives are responsible to them first and foremost.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#365

Post by wilsonnb2 »

marricks wrote: post #303
philwelch wrote: post #224

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…

I would really love it if a single person who derides the US for their drone strike casualties would actually back their position up with some data.

At a minimum, I would like to know the civilian and non-civilian casualty rates of drone strikes, the definition of civilian being used, a good idea of what alternative military action the US would have taken if they didn't have drone capabilities, and the civilian and non-civilian casualty rates of those military strike options.

Without that, bringing up the drone strike casualties is nothing more than moral grandstanding based on how certain types of military action make you feel. Bonus points if you use the words "murdering children" in an attempt to bypass any logic and go straight for emotions.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#366

Post by wilsonnb2 »

nightfreeze wrote: post #346
t1lthesky wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on are you really making this argument? That we cant know if it was better for the USA or Nazi Germany to have nuclear weapons? Like, say you have to go back in time and give nuclear weapons to Nazi Germany or the USA during ww2.. you would throw up your hands and say we can't know who the weapons should go to?

If I understand correctly, you're saying that Germany and Russia shouldn't have had nuclear weapons because they would have used them, while arguing that it was right that they went to the Americans, in spite of the fact that they used them. This does not seem like a valid position.

They didn't mention the USSR/Russia at all, just Nazi Germany. Their position is quite obviously that the US having nuclear weapons and the end of WW2 was better than Nazi Germany having them.

It has nothing to do with whether or not they would have used them. The reason that it was better for the US to have them is because Nazi Germany was conquering sovereign countries through military action, not to mention engaging in the industrialized genocide of millions of people.

Their position rests on the fact that most people agree that the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys" in WW2, which is not a position that really has to be defended.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#367

Post by wilsonnb2 »

mattlondon wrote: post #350
t1lthesky wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on are you really making this argument? That we cant know if it was better for the USA or Nazi Germany to have nuclear weapons? Like, say you have to go back in time and give nuclear weapons to Nazi Germany or the USA during ww2.. you would throw up your hands and say we can't know who the weapons should go to?

I am saying that we cant know what Nazi Germany would have done with them - i.e. we cant know if they'd have been "good" or "bad" with them. Anything we think now is merely conjecture and speculation. We have to take a step back and really examine and question our own beliefs and biases. How much of what I am thinking is actually legit, and how much is affected by what I've seen at the movies/been told by teachers/re…

Firstly, Godwin's law obviously doesn't apply to discussions about WW2.

Secondly, your assertion that we can't know what Nazi Germany would have done with nuclear weapons is correct, but you seem to be interpreting that as meaning "all possible outcomes of Nazi Germany having nuclear weapons are equally as likely", which is absolutely not true and a common mistake to make in an argument.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#368

Post by ethbro »

nolemurs wrote: post #283
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.

> 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 thin…

Small addendum: Big companies are big.

I didn't see the actual email chain (raw wasn't published?), but at Google-size it's conceivable there wasn't company-wide exec awareness of the details.

That's how big organizations operate.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#369

Post by mkaziz »

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #365
marricks wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would really love it if a single person who derides the US for their drone strike casualties would actually back their position up with some data. At a minimum, I would like to know the civilian and non-civilian casualty rates of drone strikes, the definition of civilian being used, a good idea of what alternative military action the US would have taken if they didn't have drone capabilities, and the civilian and n…

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-o...

Here's your definition of a "combatant".

Post reply on HN