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

381–390 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#381

Post by rmk »

brandonsometig wrote: post #337
rmk wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Which country came to the aid of Britain, and all those Western European nations when they were faced with the existential threat of Nazism? Russia mainly, from where an estimated 24 million people died. American also didn't wade into a war through purely selfless means either, if Germany managed to invade Britain and western Europe, America would have been at significant threat.

India (part of the British Empire) also sent millions who died fighting in North Africa.

The reasons every country got into the war were complex. But it is also largely true that America spilled blood and treasure out of a sense of obligation to fight Nazism, despite having a significant immigrant German population (who fought against their brethren on the other side), going so far as to impose a draft in the later stages of the war.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#382

Post by rmk »

fixermark wrote: post #379
UncleEntity wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Worth remembering: slavery was outlawed in the United States after it was outlawed in Great Britain. In the long-view, the whole American Experiment may not have been a net positive for slaves and their descendants relative to a hypothetical alternate history where the Revolutionary War failed and the US was just more British Empire. Nearly impossible to say with certainty, of course, because a Britain that included…

The British just exported it to locales outside their own. See the Caribbean, the remote Pacific Islands (Australia, effectively British for practical purposes at that time, enslaved many Pacific Islanders to work in plantations), much of the Indian Subcontinent, Zimbabwe/Rhodesia... shall I go on?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#383

Post by Aunche »

ionised wrote: post #340
Aunche wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few people resigned and they're trying to limit the damage because people like being outraged at things that don't matter. It's the same thing that got James Damore fired.

AI-powered drone warfare doesn't matter? What does matter in your world?

Fulfilling a military contract isn't the same as killing people with drones. Virtually every plane you've ever flown on is built by a company that also builds killing machines, but you don't see people making a hissy fit over it.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#384

Post by simion314 »

RyanZAG wrote: post #363
simion314 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, you are not forced, I said "CAN",

Say US wants to spend a lot of many with some black magic consultant that could assassinate at a distance, you can justify it by launching a rumor that China does it too or probably does it or it will do it.

So you throw away any moral discussions by blaming China , they do it so we have no choice.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#385

Post by jfv »

I've been asking myself this question for over 20 years: who are these people that click on ads anyway?

Ads are inherently going to be the opposite of Google's values, yet Google depends on them for the vast majority of their revenue. They show you some search results in line with their values, and if you can't get to the top of that "intrinsically", you buy ads or SEO. The folks that use that system to exploit the least intelligent win here, and Google takes a share of the profit.

Based on my Google search results in the recent past, Google isn't doing a good job of making sure the "best" websites (by my own value system, of course) make it to the top. I find myself having to go into second and third page results to get legitimate information. I'm seeing pages of medical quackery that "sounds good" but isn't based on science when I try to find diet or exercise advice.

As technology becomes more democratic, more people will use it. That means that the people that spend more time trying to sell you shit are going to win, because they're the ones that are willing to reverse-engineer the algorithm and push stuff up to the top. They add less value to society because they're spending all their time on marketing and promotion.

I wish I knew how to solve this problem. By imposing morals, Google "bites the hand that feeds".

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#386

Post by RyanZAG »

simion314 wrote: post #384
RyanZAG wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, you are not forced, I said "CAN", Say US wants to spend a lot of many with some black magic consultant that could assassinate at a distance, you can justify it by launching a rumor that China does it too or probably does it or it will do it. So you throw away any moral discussions by blaming China , they do it so we have no choice.

Hmm makes sense. I see what you mean from the position of say a general in US army tasked with this stuff: if someone says China can do X, his bosses are going to ask why America can't do X too. And therefore to force America into doing X, you just need reliable sounding misinformation to prove China doing X, and then moral arguments are swept aside.

However that aside, AI is very big in China right now, and they're using it for numerous applications with thousands of students going through Chinese universities being taught how to handle this stuff. While the same doesn't apply to niche interests like genetically enhanced humans (who is working on that, really?), something like AI with thousands of capable researchers and engineers is a different story.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#387

Post by EpicEng »

themacguffinman wrote: post #184
EpicEng wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you think their actions don't match their words, you now have concrete terms and principles to critique and compare with. What I think is that they will go forward with any project that has potential for good return if they don't think it will blow up in their faces, and that opinion is based on their past behavior.

I didn't realize they already have past behaviour of violating their own stated AI principles within the day of publishing those principles. /s Doesn't sound like you're really that willing to give them the benefit of the doubt like you said.

>Doesn't sound like you're really that willing to give them the benefit of the doubt like you said.

I said I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt _but_... That _but_ is important as it explains why I don't really buy it this time around, and that's based on how they handled this situation.

And c'mon, really; judging their behavior should be solely based on ML (it's not AI, let's avoid marketing terms) code? Why does the application matter? They've violated their own "don't be evil" tenet (in spirit, not saying they are literally "evil") before.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#388

Post by e12e »

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. If you think their actions don't match their words, you now have concrete terms and principles to critique and compare with.

Absolutely. Because "Don't be evil." was so vague and hard to apply to projects with ambiguous and subtle moral connotations like automating warfare and supporting the military-industrial complex' quest to avoid peace in our time ;)

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#389

Post by dalore »

sametmax wrote: post #372
dalore wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are complaining about Microsoft acquiring GitHub then is that not people trying to hold Microsoft accountable? If Microsoft's sins were truly forgiven or forgotten, people wouldn't be complaining about the acquisition.

You missed the numerous HN comments defending microsoft. You missed people on reddit or imgur singing glory to microsoft. They now have a fan base. A fan base. That's not something I would have ever imagined in the 90'.

Yes they are a big company with many facets. You can like some parts and dislike others.

They have always had a fan base, even during those dark times (but not as many). But seems like they worked on engaging others and now have a bigger fan base.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#390

Post by fwip »

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.

I'm sure the German and Soviet scientists thought that it would be best if they developed nukes first, too.

How sure are you that the present-day United States is the "right" group to have AI-controlled murder-drones?

Post reply on HN