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

DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#11

Post by coredog64 »

draw_down wrote: post #5

I think anger is ok and justified at times, and not always just a consequence of being in the wrong state of mind, etc. I think we're more and more moving to a mindset where anger is just not really ever acceptable, either to feel or to display. But, that's all a bit heavy for what this is trying to accomplish, which is certainly an understandable goal.

True story: I sent a technically correct, succinct email to someone in another division. They complained up to their VP, who talked to my VP, and then the st rolled downhill on me.

Allegedly, the problem was that I hadn't apologized that they were having a bad experience with a service that we offer.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#12

Post by Danihan »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #6
oakwhiz wrote: post #4

I wonder if machine learning will lead to worsening of the echo-chamber problem. "Error: The message cannot be sent because it does not conform to accepted groupthink."

Anytime someone has a scary thought about ML it all comes down to control problems - eg. the machine having the final say about what happens without human being able to override it. In gmail now, if you say "attached" in your email but don't attach something, you can still send the message, it just gives you a warning. You're consistently shown improved interfaces and content because of ML, yet those aren't scary and…

Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light.

Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up.

It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots already force me to waste my time on a nightly basis.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#14

Post by cmdrfred »

golergka wrote: post #10
oakwhiz wrote: post #4

I wonder if machine learning will lead to worsening of the echo-chamber problem. "Error: The message cannot be sent because it does not conform to accepted groupthink."

Sorry, your content was removed because we determined that it was linked to fake news content and/or was deemed to offensive for some members of our platform.

Its OK poltifact marked it fake news not a robot.

https://i.redd.it/x7oi5njhf7ry.png

http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/...

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#16

Post by grinich »

Kind of crazy the Google Cloud team is using gmail.js to build this extension. Gmail.js is a side project by Kartik Talwar who just graduated college and the codebase isn't exactly active.

I guess even Google can't find a good way to extend Gmail with their own APIs...

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#17

Post by cortesoft »

Danihan wrote: post #12
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime someone has a scary thought about ML it all comes down to control problems - eg. the machine having the final say about what happens without human being able to override it. In gmail now, if you say "attached" in your email but don't attach something, you can still send the message, it just gives you a warning. You're consistently shown improved interfaces and content because of ML, yet those aren't scary and…

Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light. Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up. It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots alrea…

You absolutely can run the red light, it would just be against the law. That has nothing to do with robots.

We have been making laws that limit what we can do for millennia.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#18

Post by tyingq »

Danihan wrote: post #12
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime someone has a scary thought about ML it all comes down to control problems - eg. the machine having the final say about what happens without human being able to override it. In gmail now, if you say "attached" in your email but don't attach something, you can still send the message, it just gives you a warning. You're consistently shown improved interfaces and content because of ML, yet those aren't scary and…

Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light. Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up. It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots alrea…

Gmail does this already. Try and attach a Windows exe to an email. I have valid reasons to want to do that, but have to find workarounds.

It seems happy with uploading the same file to Google drive and putting a link in the email. Though that doesn't solve my use case of sharing with Chinese Nationals who are blocked from those urls. I'm also not clear on how/why this is somehow more secure.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#19

Post by dmreedy »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #6
oakwhiz wrote: post #4

I wonder if machine learning will lead to worsening of the echo-chamber problem. "Error: The message cannot be sent because it does not conform to accepted groupthink."

Anytime someone has a scary thought about ML it all comes down to control problems - eg. the machine having the final say about what happens without human being able to override it. In gmail now, if you say "attached" in your email but don't attach something, you can still send the message, it just gives you a warning. You're consistently shown improved interfaces and content because of ML, yet those aren't scary and…

So, I disagree a little. The first-order problem is one of control, as you describe. The second-order problem is one of comfort with control, and the normalization that that entails. Once you accept a certain piece of automation, you tend accept its failures alongside its successes. To continue on from the GP, it is entirely likely that an error message along the lines of "your phrasing does not conform to polite societal norms" (to avoid the term 'groupthink') adds one extra layer of friction between an intention and an act. This can be a good thing (your google example), but it's not universally a good thing, because of possible conditioning effects that can have subtle and long-lasting implications.

I agree that it's not scary in the "Skynet is going to take over" sense. Much rather in the "They Live" sense, though even without the bare malicious intents there.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#20

Post by scandox »

Danihan wrote: post #12
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime someone has a scary thought about ML it all comes down to control problems - eg. the machine having the final say about what happens without human being able to override it. In gmail now, if you say "attached" in your email but don't attach something, you can still send the message, it just gives you a warning. You're consistently shown improved interfaces and content because of ML, yet those aren't scary and…

Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light. Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up. It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots alrea…

Great example. I'm delighted that the robots have the final say on this. Long may they override your advanced sensors.
Post reply on HN