11–20 of 35 posts
> Google’s new offerings will test whether a lucrative but increasingly distrusted industry can boost its business by offering ethical pointers Isn’t google a big part of why there is so much distrust to begin with? Seems like asking your oxy dealer for detox advice.
Opiate dealers often stock narcan.
Step 2. JK
Ag yes, that paragon of ethical data use, Google.
An ethical AI needs to be able to function without gorging itself on users' private data
Some fun history: I thought the phrase originated with the Christian bible:
> "when the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch"
but Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind traces it to the Upanishads:
> "Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind."
I made it two paragraphs before I remembered the preface of Google's code of conduct was stripped of the line "Don't be evil." It's now the last line, which to me reads as doing the ethical thing is an afterthought . The much more ambiguous "Do the right thing," is in Alphabet's corporate code. We need the ethics of AI to be an offshoot of open source. It's tough to suggest that in an environment where enough people…
As far as the ethics of AI goes, would "don't be evil" slogan be better than "do the right thing"? I'm sure people may interpret things differently but doing the right thing would mean Google making AI that has a positive net impact on society, while "don't be evil" could simply mean good for Google but neutral to everyone else.
Being able to count on probably 5 years of OS and security updates instead of the mishmash of abandoned handsets or potential security nightmares with hobbyist firmwares is another nice feature.
Note that this is a different issue than data privacy, which Google rightly takes flak on. AI bias is referring to questions like “if I train a network to (sentence criminals, price insurance, ...), how do I detect if the resulting predictions are racially biased?”
The conversation on this subject by lay folks is rife with statistical ignorance, and Google has done good work communicating and clarifying the conversational starting points. This is a hard issue because it takes ethical trade-offs and forces you to specify mathematically exactly how you want to handle inequality, which is a subject that most people haven’t thought through rigorously, and would rather hand-wave away with virtuous sound bites.
For example, see http://research.google.com/bigpicture/attacking-discriminati...
> Google’s new offerings will test whether a lucrative but increasingly distrusted industry can boost its business by offering ethical pointers Isn’t google a big part of why there is so much distrust to begin with? Seems like asking your oxy dealer for detox advice.
No they are the big scapegoat. Seriously it is a zeitgeisted Big Lie where they streneously insist it is a problem and make impossible ignorant standards while failing to provide evidence just fear mongered bullshit from the losers. The actual problems with AI ethics are down to "it isn't ready for that morons" and "It would be obviously abusable even if it was jackass."