AI at Google: our principles • Hacker News Board

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#201

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:05 PM UTC

rmk wrote: post #193

rmk wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" Google, an already known to be duplicitous company, changed its policy to maintain its workforce at the expense of US national interests . That's certainly something to be wary about, as a member of the public.

People should never be compelled to work on producing weapons or munitions, except in times of war. Google, specifically, like Facebook, should be invited to explain itself and generally describe its activities a bit more transparently for the public to see. At this point Google is effectively a utility, so there's plenty of good reasons to regulate it like one. Right now, it has benefited from almost no oversight an…

What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"?

I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#202

Post by robbrown451 » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

the-pigeon wrote: post #168

killjoywashere wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". It's not possible to make all the right policy decisions that are right in hindsight and before a sentinal event occurs. Hindsight bias is always 20/20. Anyone making real decisions of consequence will eventually curse hindsight.

Sure. But Google has no intention of doing the right thing anymore than Microsoft or Disney does. These are corporations and their executives HAVE to do what they think will be best for the corporation. Not what they think is best for mankind. This is how for profit businesses currently work. And PR saying anything to the contrary is simply not true.

Even if this is true, they can make the subjective decision that doing certain things will make the company look bad in the eyes of employees (which not only can cause employees to resign, but can disadvantage a company in negotiations to hire new employees) and users of the product, and can ultimately be worse for their bottom line than things that don't bring the same short-term financial benefits.

Ultimately, though, I agree with zaphar that you are overgeneralizing, since corporations are controlled by humans -- executives, other employees, and shareholders -- and human motivations can be complex.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#203

Post by killjoywashere » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #134

killjoywashere wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The emails you're aware of framed it in those terms. Do you think a leaker might selectively leak with the intent to paint a particular picture? As someone who has helped write policy, it is literally impossible to write up all policy in advance. You always end up weathering some angry insights in the comment section (we used to call it the peanut gallery). If you can write out all policy a priori, every CEO, economi…

>Do you think a leaker might selectively leak with the intent to paint a particular picture? Possibly. As I said "...that we're aware of." Anything beyond what we know is speculation. This is the information I have available. Let me ask you this; if there was real debate and concern beforehand, why is it only now that Google has decided to back out?

Because one very good policy is to not make policy in the heat of the moment. Write things down. Discuss with confidantes, counsel, etc. Sleep it on it. Change it. Sleep on it again. The bigger the issue, the more you think about before going public.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#204

Post by killjoywashere » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #141

killjoywashere wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". It's not possible to make all the right policy decisions that are right in hindsight and before a sentinal event occurs. Hindsight bias is always 20/20. Anyone making real decisions of consequence will eventually curse hindsight.

Well Google is now framing this as a moral issue, so did morality change significantly between when they accepted this project and today?

Do you think regret is morally valid?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#205

Post by philwelch » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

qbaqbaqba wrote: post #146

philwelch wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a geopolitical level, it does. It's far better for the world that the United States developed atomic weapons before either Germany or the Soviets did.

The US were the only one to use atomic weapons on a already defeated enemy/at all.

Would you rather it was Stalin?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#206

Post by cecilpl2 » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #162

ksk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically has anyone succeeded in holding such giant firms accountable to their own stated principles? At the moment, I like those principles more than I like Google.

The funny thing about "holding people accountable" is that people rarely explain what it means, and I'm not even sure they know what it means? It's a stock phrase in politics that needs to be made more concrete to have any meaning.

As best as I can tell, it means something like "using the generally available levers of social shame and guilt to dissuade someone from doing something, or if they have already done the bad thing, then requiring them to explain their behavior in a satisfactory way and make a public commitment to avoid doing it again."

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#207

Post by blacksmith_tb » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #162

ksk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically has anyone succeeded in holding such giant firms accountable to their own stated principles? At the moment, I like those principles more than I like Google.

The funny thing about "holding people accountable" is that people rarely explain what it means, and I'm not even sure they know what it means? It's a stock phrase in politics that needs to be made more concrete to have any meaning.

And it requires that you be in a position of power - otherwise it's just heckling, which isn't likely to have any real impact. In this case it'd be having the ability to impose fines, or discipline corporate officers, etc.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#208

Post by kevinmchugh » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:19 PM UTC

whazor wrote: post #36

But how? Let's assume I personally offer artificial intelligence services. So I provide some API's where my customers upload training and testing data, and I return a trained ML model. I do not know who uses my service or what they are doing... Furthermore, if ban the military. Then another company could do it for them. So every customer would have to explain their activities?

Banks are required to do this for at least money-laundering purposes. It's called Know Your Customer.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#209

Post by rmk » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:21 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #185

rmk wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" Google, an already known to be duplicitous company, changed its policy to maintain its workforce at the expense of US national interests . That's certainly something to be wary about, as a member of the public.

You didn't address the main point of my comment, so I'll ask again more directly: are you suggesting that the government create regulation that compels companies, (and thus individuals) to do work on military technology that it deems relevant to national interests? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?

What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"? I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected.

The connection is the hubris that enables Google to benefit from public largesse while simultaneously believing itself to be superior to it (and by extension, the public). Like it or not, Google has benefited immensely from research facilitated/instigated by DARPA, DoD etc. which were all military technologies (GPS, internet, Grand Challenge). But now, it has serious qualms about AI that enables civilian areas to be identified in conflict zones (by its own admission).

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#210

Post by moultano » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #55

So, I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt if they have a change of heart upon reconsidering an issue, but this coming after the fact rings a bit hollow to me. I think the only principle at play here is that it became a PR issue. That's fine, but let's be honest about it. Early emails between Google execs framed this project only in terms of revenue and potential PR backlash. As far as we're aware, there…

Organizations do not always communicate well, and sometimes things only reach the CEO via the press. Do not assume that the whole organization, or even just its executive, agrees with or knows about everything the organization does.