Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#121

Post by ehsankia » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:44 AM UTC

throwaway_trust wrote: post #61

gizmo686 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are being genuine when they say their plan is to combat fake news with AI; their business is built around AI. It is one of their core competencies. I think they are going to fail, and quietly increase the human involvement once they realize that their AI isn't good enough. Then they will slowly scale back the humans as their AI improves, until the next controversy when they realize that they still need h…

> I think they are going to fail, and quietly increase the human involvement once they realize that their AI isn't good enough. Then they will slowly scale back the humans as their AI improves, until the next controversy when they realize that they still need humans. Exactly. AI is not good at subjective decisions of qualitative data. For example, nobody knows any political candidate's net worth apart from IRS, until…

Realistically there doesn't exist a good solution for this. That's why every single site out there with user content that is large enough is struggling with moderation.

There is no solution that scales up to billions of users, and while it's true that AI most likely won't work, it is the best they've got right now. Do you have a better solution? Because Google has hired some of the smartest people and even then they still are having issues with Youtube every other week, so I'm sure you'd be paid a pretty hefty sum if you could solve this.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#122

Post by jayd16 » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:44 AM UTC

codeonfire wrote: post #109

jayd16 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument only makes sense if you think immigrants, lgbtq and women are not every day people.

Once you accept and identify as a label then you are no longer part of the middle. That is one of the main arguments against race quotas and affirmative action. It taints the whole idea of equality and neutrality.

Identifying as a woman means you are not in the middle?

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#123

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:44 AM UTC

dmitrygr wrote: post #93

I have no comment on the content of this, since I don't want to get fired for saying anything remotely close to what I think. I am kind of curious how this video was obtained however.

After the Damore thing, Breitbart posted several anonymous interviews with conservative Googlers and Xooglers, so it seems like they've cultivated a group of contacts there. One of them specifically even discussed this exact TGIF and what it was like. I suspect one of those contacts leaked this to them as well.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#124

Post by jayd16 » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:44 AM UTC

nodesocket wrote: post #111

carapace wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the Bay Area, I grew up in San Francisco, I'm firmly left-leaning in much of my political views. I upvoted your comment because in my opinion you are right, although overstating it a bit. The "Left Coast" is biased. There is a lot of tribal knee-jerk reactivity, and there are rabid haters. (Yeah yeah the right has 'em too. There's a reason Tim Chevlier and David Gudeman were both fired. Not my point.) "Not…

Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment. It's already getting downvoted unfortunately. The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing. How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative?

You act like Trump didn't quickly move to travel bans and visa shenanigans that have a serious impact on employees. Worrying about harshing a victory buzz is not a priority.

I'm not sure why you think politics doesn't effect Google and the people who work there or why concerns shouldn't be addressed in an all hands.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#125

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:46 AM UTC

jiojfdsal3 wrote: post #29

jf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using AI to manipulate what you see is already happening - especially if you browse the web without an adblocker.

Yeah, but this directly has ramifications for our democracy, doesn't it? It looks they're actively trying to prevent certain content from being seen while exposing the content Google executives feel the masses 'should' see. This doesn't seem very neutral to me. The leaked video is quite disturbing.

> It looks they're actively trying to prevent certain content from being seen while exposing the content Google executives feel the masses 'should' see.

Even if they were doing this overtly to promote a political view rather than to address the problem—false information—that the question expressly raises, this would be protected political speech.

> This doesn't seem very neutral to me.

Even if it didn't (and the actual answer to the actual question does not suggest political bias unless false propaganda uniquely favors one side), so what? What corporation, particularly in the business of distributing current events information, is strictly politically neutral? Certainly none of the ones pushing the narrative that this should be considered disturbing.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#126

Post by quotemstr » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:47 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #117

quotemstr wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are part of the problem. Is antibiotics development changing the world? I should hope so. Do bacteria care about which presidential candidate won? Absolutely not. Most fields, in fact, do not involve the acrimonious political issues of the day. The idea that "everything is political" is a lame excuse that activists use to hack politics into spaces where it doesn't belong. Even if a field has some tenuous connecti…

Bacteria absolutely care -- or at least we humans care about how it affects bacteria. Political policy determines how the FDA regulates (or doesn't regulate) drugs, including antibiotics. Political policy determines if taxpayer dollars are spent getting antibiotics to those who need them, or on missiles instead. Political policy determines whether doctors are incentivized to minimize antibiotic prescriptions (and pre…

> Bacteria absolutely care

Seriously?

> Political policy determines how the FDA regulates...

That's exactly what I mean when I talk about a tendentious excuse for putting activism where it doesn't belong. A drug company might have a lobbying arm that has to care about policy (and that, for pragmatic purposes, talks to all sides!), but a researcher looking at chromosomal recombination isn't going to do a better job of examining the damn chromosomes after being subject to political screeds. If anything, politics in that venue will distract researchers and detract from the business's core. Is that cost worth it so that some people can feel self-righteous?

> Saying that workplaces should be non-political is a a political statement, and by definition a conservative one

So, according to "crazygringo", neutrality is "by definition" supporting the opposition. Much George Bush. Very "with us or against us". Wow.

Re "by definition": see https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cFzC996D7Jjds3vS9/arguing-by...

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#127

Post by nodesocket » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:47 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #120

nodesocket wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment. It's already getting downvoted unfortunately. The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing. How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative?

How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative? What obligation do you think that a company should have to respect the political leanings of its employees? While it might be in a company's self-interest not to alienate talented employees with minority political beliefs, do you believe it should be forbidden for the company to "choose sides"?

Just as liberals like to promote social justice, I think it's not fair to conservatives that are harassed, outed, and unfairly represented. Since when is it ok for a company to hold a political rally?

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#128

Post by codeonfire » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:51 AM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #122

codeonfire wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you accept and identify as a label then you are no longer part of the middle. That is one of the main arguments against race quotas and affirmative action. It taints the whole idea of equality and neutrality.

Identifying as a woman means you are not in the middle?

A woman that joins a company in mountain view that only hires women is the same as a man that joins a company in Manhattan that only hires men. Can't really say you are neutral after that.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#129

Post by iosDrone » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:51 AM UTC

supernovae wrote: post #98

simula67 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Alexandria ocasio Cortes go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours Are you kidding ? She said US military was given $700 billion increase that they didn't ask for. She said that US unemployment is low becuase everyone has two jobs. She said ICE has to detain 34,000 people every night by law. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-co...…

She was criticized for being female regardless of her misconceptions on military spending and how many jobs people have. A huge chunk of the world doesn't give equal forgiving or demands of females as they do males - they demand more and forgive less. Ever looked at PolitiFact for just about every other politician? Just look at Serena Williams.. she blabbed and it may be the end of her career (or a lingering black ey…

It's a very stupid prediction that the Serena Williams incident will end her career. It should be a "lingering black eye" for her — she behaved horribly. But it won't be how she will be remembered ultimately.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#130

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:51 AM UTC

jarsin wrote: post #34

liftbigweights wrote: post #7

I see an hour old post on the frontpage with 6 votes. This story has more votes in less time and is not on the frontpage. I think this is a far more important news story than "The Known Known". Edit) So this tech related story is off-topic but the "known known" an explicitly political and off-topic post is not.

I submitted this way earlier today and got some message from the site I had never seen before that it was already submitted but it did not show it to me like it usually does, and it was nowhere to be found. I think this guy got it through because he did not use the original Breitbart link. My recent fox story about google got the silent ban as well.

You can turn your "show dead" setting in your profile to "yes" to see these. Some domains are automatically marked dead on submission, usually sites with a strong bias or who rarely break their own news. As dang noted elsewhere in this thread, this story is notable and worth sharing, so it's a worthy exception.

Users with enough karma can vouch for dead stories as well and make them visible, but since the dead pile is super spammy, most users don't bother to look in there.