From Google: Why we focus on AI (and to what end) • Hacker News Board

Re: From Google: Why we focus on AI (and to what end)

#21

Post by dokein » Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 1:30 PM UTC

belval wrote: post #6

Nice PR/buzzword soup they got there, the article is almost entirely devoid of substance. The part on "Responsible AI" reminds me of the "Tethics" episode of Silicon Valley, brought to you by the people who own ~30% on the online ad market.

Usually, if it's a letter that's signed by the C-suite and reviewed by 5 layers of internal and external PR, it won't say anything interesting.

This is because, to be interesting, it has to be something unexpected.

But the job of the PR is to minimize disagreeableness.

It's rare to that something is both unexpected and minimally disagreeable. A sudden advance in medicine resulting in a cure for cancer would be both (but even then, if it were e.g. an mRNA vector some people might find it disagreeable). But a company's position on a technological advance almost never meets both [Google PR: "Google also supports cures for cancer!" Yawn.]

Re: From Google: Why we focus on AI (and to what end)

#22

Post by antipotoad » Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 3:13 PM UTC

darreninthenet wrote: post #15

vagabund wrote: post #9

You'd think the experience of ChatGPT would have taught them that the average person isn't blindly worshipping the output of LLMs, and has the requisite critical thinking skills to keep the useful bits and discard the rest. Instead we get this belittling rebuttal highlighting the immense danger of letting the public use a service that may, occasionally, be wrong, as though humans don't encounter and discriminate inco…

I do think they sort of have a point... (lay) people are used to engaging critical thinking when using computers for interactions with other people. They aren't used to thinking about computers own output in this sort of fuzzy way as it's not been a problem until recently... I can't see how my parents could suddenly conceptualise the whole idea that their computer may be lying to them or is confidently confused and w…

I submit that people could learn, provided the model output is framed appropriately. It does come across as rather patronizing from Google. Little wonder given the company’s DNA. Also just very risk averse, which goes without saying.

Re: From Google: Why we focus on AI (and to what end)

#23

Post by dougmwne » Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 6:52 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #19

dougmwne wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it looks like Google never intended to turn its AI research into products. It probably sees these LLMs, that it itself was instrumental in inventing as a competitor to search and nothing that could ever get green lit as a product due to internal politics. I see OpenAI as an intentional effort to free this tech from the smothering of Google led by SV insiders in the know on what Google was sitting on.

The classic innovators dilemma. I think you're on to something. They just couldn't stand the ethical headache of this whole thing. I think this is the first really upfront case of highly useful technology being repressed. Sure, there have been rumors of all sorts of things being repressed, but this is the first time it's really out in the open publicly.

I think it is quite similar to EVs. No established player in the auto industry had any interest in developing them because it was seen as a risk to established business and partnerships. The EV1 was a great early start from 1996 that was literally crushed (see the documentary, Who Killed The Electric Car). Dealerships fight against EVs to this day. Wyoming just called for EV sales to be banned by 2035. Without Tesla sending the whole industry into a panic I just don’t think there would be any practical cars on the market today.

Re: From Google: Why we focus on AI (and to what end)

#24

Post by zcw100 » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 10:51 AM UTC

darreninthenet wrote: post #15

vagabund wrote: post #9

You'd think the experience of ChatGPT would have taught them that the average person isn't blindly worshipping the output of LLMs, and has the requisite critical thinking skills to keep the useful bits and discard the rest. Instead we get this belittling rebuttal highlighting the immense danger of letting the public use a service that may, occasionally, be wrong, as though humans don't encounter and discriminate inco…

I do think they sort of have a point... (lay) people are used to engaging critical thinking when using computers for interactions with other people. They aren't used to thinking about computers own output in this sort of fuzzy way as it's not been a problem until recently... I can't see how my parents could suddenly conceptualise the whole idea that their computer may be lying to them or is confidently confused and w…

Maybe this article was written by a Google AI. I don’t see an author listed.