Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research • Hacker News Board

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#21

Post by oblio » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:48 PM UTC

ruslanbogan wrote: post #12

drfuchs wrote: post #9

Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the products were harmful, but their results were squelched. “Do no harm,” indeed.

The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist

> The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist.

I'm not sure I understand. Are they worse or better?

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#22

Post by oblio » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:50 PM UTC

curiousllama wrote: post #3

If the outcomes of research don’t align to Google’s business strategy, they’re going to get rid of the research/researchers. Previously, ethics was good PR; now, it’s a risk in antitrust cases. This will continue to ramp up.

It will also continue to ramp up even more as growth dries up. The internet can only get so big, especially on a quarterly basis, and these companies are already very big. They're public and pressure to grow is huge.

It's going to be a rough ride throughout the next decade.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#23

Post by FemmeAndroid » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:50 PM UTC

_cs2017_ wrote: post #14

IMHO, a scientist capable of striking any tone in their work, positive or negative, is doing marketing / PR work rather than science. There's nothing wrong with that. Just like any other member of society, a scientist may want to contribute to a (for-profit or non-profit) organization of their choice, be it for material or spiritual rewards. However, I think it's important not to get science and marketing confused. S…

Any scientist writing prose will necessarily strike a tone. Unless they’re just publishing raw data, the way you use that data in your prose will lead to a different tone. I have read a good deal of historical and modern scientific papers and they all had different tones.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#24

Post by hajderr » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:51 PM UTC

Idea: AI bot for detecting positive tones in Google's papers.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#25

Post by square_usual » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:55 PM UTC

throw_m239339 wrote: post #8

Google is a for profit corporation, not a college campus, news at 11.

Everybody knows that. You can think it's a bad thing for a private company to do bad things, even if they're free to. Stating a fact isn't an argument.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#26

Post by mosselman » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:55 PM UTC

xiphias2 wrote: post #11

dls2016 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't talk bad about the company that I was getting my paycheck from Have you ever been in a union workplace?

No, but my work life was amazing. There are important things to address at Google, like not having enough sitting toilets for men (there's 3 times as much for women even though there are much less women in the office where I was working) that an union may help with, but that's different from the product PR.

Forcing men to poop standing up is probably some productivity hack.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#27

Post by bitcharmer » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:56 PM UTC

drfuchs wrote: post #9

Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the products were harmful, but their results were squelched. “Do no harm,” indeed.

Well, Google removed "Don't be evil" as their slogan quite some time ago. Don't think that was by an error.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#28

Post by raverbashing » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:56 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #21

ruslanbogan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist

> The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist. I'm not sure I understand. Are they worse or better?

Algorithmic biases and their application to human systems are a very interesting, and important topic. And yes, they can be unfair to already disadvantaged people

But I think the discussion too easily devolves into the craziest humanities self-pleasing circles. Then they are surprised they get push back? Of course Google also share their side of the blame when they think just creating an "ethics commission" with a rubber stamp solves their issue

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#29

Post by square_usual » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:56 PM UTC

ruslanbogan wrote: post #12

drfuchs wrote: post #9

Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the products were harmful, but their results were squelched. “Do no harm,” indeed.

The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist

Can you show me five philosophy graduate turned AI researcher who thinks if statements are racist? If AI research teams are "full of" them, as you say, it should be trivial to find such people.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#30

Post by FemmeAndroid » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:57 PM UTC

ruslanbogan wrote: post #12

drfuchs wrote: post #9

Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the products were harmful, but their results were squelched. “Do no harm,” indeed.

The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist

Do you have an example of one of these ‘philosophy graduates’ you’re describing?

The only person I’m closely aware of here is Timnit Gebru. She has a bachelors and masters in Electrical Engineering as well as a PhD. If you’re describing her and her ilk as ‘philosophy graduates’ because they have PhDs, I think you’re vastly mischaracterizing their education.