Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 307 posts

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

#81

Post by daniel957 »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #45
daniel957 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does your last bullet point make me feel like we read two different articles?

fwiw I agree with the parent comment. This article, especially the ludicrous attempt to tie in the Gebru stuff, is super weak and absent of any details or anything substantial. I don’t see anything in the article that suggests Google suppresses unfavorable research or censors authors whatsoever. Instead it sounds like a lot of whining and complaining from exceedingly privileged researchers who want some version of te…

Why did you find the mention of Timnit Gebru ludicrous? The issues are closely related. In fact, I was _expecting_ the article to mention it.

Google tells Researcher 1 to re-word things in X way for Y reason.

Google tells Timnit Gebru to re-word things in X way for Y reason.

The X and Y are the same.

Based on the rest of your response, I believe you are having trouble reading the article in an objective manner. You say that it sounds like whining to you. That’s because you already think it is. You came into the article with this viewpoint about academics in corporations already established. This is why I also found your comment hilarious. You already think Timnit is a whiny researcher. You say this article is about whiny researchers. Yet it’s _ludicrous_ to mention Timnit in this article?

Also, Jeff Dean lied in his email. Maybe that’s why you’re confused about the Timnit situation. I’m assuming you don’t work at Google.

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

#82

Post by ClumsyPilot »

piokoch wrote: post #53
oblio wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That's an actually good question. AI is supposed to be fed with real-live data, after all it has to be something usable in the real-world. Now, you feed AI with crime data, looking at statistics such AI will suspect people having black color of the skin to be criminals more often than people with white skin. Is that ok? Is it ok to say that if some person happens to have black skin there is a bigger chance that it is…

> For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe

Two angels arrive in Sodom, and Lot shows them hospitality. However, the men of the city gathered around Lot's house and demanded that he give them the two guests so that they could rape them. In response to this, Lot offers the mob his two virgin daughters instead.

...

Lot's wife turns into a pillar of salt, but Lot and his daughters escape to Zoar, and end up living in a cave in the mountains. In Genesis 19:30–38 Lot's daughters got their father drunk, and over two consecutive nights had sex with him without his knowledge.

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

#83

Post by Udik »

bitcharmer wrote: post #27
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.

Though they did replace it with the motto "do the right thing". Which to me is even more scary, as it means that Google decided to stop being a neutral entity within the boundaries of not causing harm, and decided to become a political actor that is committed on advancing its own idea of "right". What if (as it happens) my idea of what is right doesn't match that of a 1.7 trillion company that controls much of the information flow worldwide and provides most of the services I use in my daily life?

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

#84

Post by andybak »

bitcharmer wrote: post #27
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.

Please can we stop repeating this at every opportunity? I'm sure everyone has heard it a million times. Whatever truth and insight it once conveyed has rather faded away.

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

#85

Post by ClumsyPilot »

xiphias2 wrote: post #50
purple-again wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first inclination was just to move on but you didn’t post on a throwaway so I will take the bait. Why do you think the toilet issue you described is a problem that needs to be fixed? My experience in every corner of life in America to date has been separated bathrooms by sex and the men’s restroom containing far fewer sitting toilets. We all know this is because women sit for both natural duties and men, generally…

> Why do you think the toilet issue you described is a problem that needs to be fixed? Because this way Google was effectively paying me loads of money to just go through 7 floors of bathrooms to find an empty one when I needed to use it. It's a waste of corporate resources to use a human resource's time like this. At the end the solution for me was just using the disabled toilet, as we didn't have disabled people on…

Did you miss this part?

"If so that sounds like a facilities growth issue and not a sex imbalance issue"

To make this into a gender issue, you have to argue google can't afford toilets

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

#86

Post by Grazester »

bitcharmer wrote: post #27
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.

Am I the only one that gets tied of the "Don't be evil" post each time a Google related post is made? It's like beating a dead horse.

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

#87

Post by staktrace »

piokoch wrote: post #53
oblio wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That's an actually good question. AI is supposed to be fed with real-live data, after all it has to be something usable in the real-world. Now, you feed AI with crime data, looking at statistics such AI will suspect people having black color of the skin to be criminals more often than people with white skin. Is that ok? Is it ok to say that if some person happens to have black skin there is a bigger chance that it is…

> In statistical terms the answer is yes,

Not actually. Statistics from a larger population "cannot" be used to predict outcomes from a smaller subset or individual from the population. ("cannot" in the sense that you get nonsensical results if you do). See e.g. the ecological fallacy.

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

#88

Post by free_rms »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #75
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #34

The “sensitive topics” extra review seems completely fair and obviously necessary. Anyone acting like that amounts to censorship in a private company is totally off their rocker. This article seems really weak, and of course there’s the obligatory attempt to tie it in with Timnit Gebru’s resignation and her very inappropriate behavior, even though for all of Google’s flaws, Google clearly and obviously did the right…

"Gebru’s weak paper" Could you please back up your claim as to the paper's quality - do yoy have credentials and background that enable you to cast this judgement, or is this pedestrian?

I don't need credentials to read a paper which muses about current events.

You want to outsource your thinking to the credentialed? Go ahead but the rest of us don't have to. The paper is out there and it's quite easy to read, because it's not saying a whole lot.

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

#89

Post by _cs2017_ »

chaboud wrote: post #33
_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…

When I was young and (more) idealistic, my department chair pulled me aside after I’d been dogmatic about something and said “everything is political... The sooner you realize that, the better off you’ll be.” It took 10 years for that to really sink in, but I knew that every paper has an angle well before that. There’s a position of inevitability about AI around Google, and, to an extent, I agree. Unlike tobacco, alc…

Pick randomly a list of top papers in ML, for example https://www.kdnuggets.com/2020/01/top-10-ai-ml-articles-to-k.... Most (if not all) all of them have no "positive" or "negative" tone, as far as I can tell.

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

#90

Post by supergirl »

andybak wrote: post #84
bitcharmer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Please can we stop repeating this at every opportunity? I'm sure everyone has heard it a million times. Whatever truth and insight it once conveyed has rather faded away.

yeah. and it’s not like “don’t be evil” is something to be proud of. it’s the bare minimum to be expected
Post reply on HN