Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
AI at Google: our principles
401–410 of 418 posts
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
They circumvent this by using the word "avoid." Avoiding and not doing are two different things.
I don't know how you do something and avoid doing something at the same time.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#403Re: AI at Google: our principles
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Possibly because it's literally the subject of this thread, blog post, and the change of heart we're discussing.
> but this coming after the fact rings a bit hollow to me
^ from your original comment. So you don't buy the change of heart because...they had a change of heart after an event that told them they need a change of heart?
Did you expect them to have a change of heart before they realized they need to have a change of heart? Did you expect them to already know the correct ethics before anything happened and therefore not need the change of heart that you'd totally be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on?
> They've violated their own "don't be evil" tenet (in spirit, not saying they are literally "evil") before.
Right, in the same way that I can just say they are good and didn't violate that tenet based on my own arbitrary set of values that Google never specified (in spirit, of course, not saying they are literally "good", otherwise I'd be saying something meaningful).
It still doesn't look like you were ever willing of giving them the benefit of the doubt on a change of heart like the one expressed in this blog post. Which is fine, if you're honest about it. Companies don't inherently deserve trust. But don't pretend to be a forgiving fellow who has the graciousness to give them a chance.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#406Don't be evil 2.0?
Don't be evil : Reimagined?
Don't be evil : The Reboot?
Don't be evil : The Prequel?
I should work at Google's marketing department. I've a lot of ideas.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#407Earlier 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.
If Germany or Soviet Russia had the opportunity to use nuclear weapons to impose their will on their enemies, one need only look at what happened to the victims who already fell under their dominion.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#408Earlier 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…
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#409Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms.
They already failed.
Re: AI at Google: our principles
#410Several 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 doesn't have anything to do with censoring your favorite conservative search result. But that's not correct. That's exactly what it's to do with. A big part of the philosophy of conservatism is to accept the world as you find it. Conservatives, at least in theory (not saying the Republicans are a great implementation of the philosophy), eschew large social engineering schemes, they eschew attempts to remould attit…
If a machine learning algorithm learned a bad definition of conservative, that cast them as crypto-racists, you'd want it corrected wouldn't you? Even if a reading of conservative news sites comment forums gives you exactly that impression is likely true?
> "Quite why this outcome is better than the existing status quo is never explained with any rigour - it's ideology."
Right, progressives are the only ones with ideology, conservative positions are arrived at by cold, hard logic?
Tell me why an African American slave boy, growing up in the 1800s, who learns the existing status quo that black people are property, and white people or not, is a worse outcome? Clearly, it's a better outcome for white people of the era, so any explanation for why it might be preferable to alter it has to argue that the status quo wasn't good for black people, or that it wasn't good for white people for some presumably economic reason.
Maybe just maybe, the status quo isn't good for women? Maybe it would be good to ask them if it's ideology, or if changing cultural attitudes about what women are allowed to do, and capable of doing over the last 200 years has been a positive change in the status quo for them?
BTW, Conservatives don't reject social engineering, they just reject social engineering they disapprove of. Social conservatives around the world, in concert with religion, have sought to engineer human behavior with appeal to cultural and religious piety, and in many cases, winning laws that enforce such behavior. We've had anti-sodomy laws, anti-booze laws, anti-miscegenation laws, all of them enacted by social conservatism. And what do you call religious proselytizing, if not social engineering? Trying to spread memes and infect and convert more people into a new way of thinking.
Sometimes I feel that conservatives are against secular, humanist 'social engineering' the way Scientologists are against Psychotherapy, because it's competing in the same meme space.
Society is a dynamic equilibrium. It is constantly evolving, sometimes it evolves purely organically, in a spontaneous order, and sometimes there are clusters and movements that boil over, and change arrives by deliberate persuasion.
Google is a global, transnational company, that serves the entire world, 7+ billion people. It needs to reflect that diversity. And like I said, it absolutely cannot have AI that does stupid stuff like learn that black faces are gorillas.