Live data from Hacker News

AI at Google: our principles

blog.google

401–410 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#401
post #324

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.)

That could be easily executed as a chrome extension!

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#402
post #23

Earlier 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.

Personally, I think the term "avoid" is more of an ideal/pragmatic stance ("would be ideal not to") than the binary "will do"/" will not do"

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#403
Luckily no one needs to worry about Google ever creating advancements AI (they can't, they lack the required skillset). Google is the modern day IBM, and AlphaGo is just another DeepBlue. I wonder when Google will make a gimmick like Watson. I guess Duplex is the beginning of it. It's amazing to see how many people were impressed by that. Then again, the tech scene lacks the scientific rigour that is required for spotting breakthroughs.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#404

Earlier 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.

As a neutral observer, I've not been on past threads. Most people who don't have particular interest in this haven't. It would be nice to hear both sides of the argument

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#405

Earlier 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…

> Why does the application matter?

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

#407

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.

The United States imposed their will on Japan with the force of nuclear weapons, and as a result, Japan is a prosperous, free, and independent country.

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

#408

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…

Look at Syria and Chechnya if you have the slightest amount of ignorance about how Putin does counterterrorism. Are you literally a Russian troll?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#410

Several 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…

Obtaining the correct categorization of something is not social engineering, it's returning a FACTUAL answer. I didn't ask the AI "are men more likely to be doctors" I asked "what is a doctor" Do you understand the difference? I don't expect it to tell me "Doctors are male individuals who...." No where in my original post did I say the AI has to lie about gender ratios, I would expect any AI to tell me also, the socio-historical-cultural perspective of the medical profession, and how it has changed over time. I am simply not interested in a neat little, static, steady state view of something that conveniently leaves out context. Do conservatives want to exist in a bubble where no criticism of the status quo is seen?

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.

Post reply on HN