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

Not OK, Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 594 posts

Re: Not OK, Google

#211

Post by darklajid »

eternalban wrote: post #121
darklajid wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Star Trek even a currency? It always feels like a socialist/communist thing to me. You cannot compare the world's biggest seller of advertisement space with the ST universe. The motivation's aren't aligned: Google/Alphabet want to make sales based on my information. I agree that I found these oh so clever AI fantasies interesting in my youth, still do to a degree. But I always pictured the data being held inacces…

Star Trek's world seems to be a 'utopia' of scientific-military governance. Most of the key players have a military rank, wear color coded uniforms, and appear to be under 24/7 surveillance (which is OK since this is a very nice and progressive scientific-military goverment and you know War On and all that. :)

Given the "War On $species" thing, "War On Romulan Ale" might work as well?

Remember kids: Don't intoxicate yourself with substances we do not condone. :)

Re: Not OK, Google

#213

Post by sidcool »

Thus article is rightful in raising concerns for privacy. But it's just repeating and rehashing same things. Google had been devouring data for long time.

Re: Not OK, Google

#215

Post by blhack »

Koshkin wrote: post #115
ubercore wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my mind, leading a simple life is enjoying a burger at a restaurant/bar I frequent already. Simplicity _is_ accepting that Google algorithmically noticed a trend and just helped me do things I already do.

Yes, traps are usually designed so that it is simple to get into them. It is not that cheese is bad, it is that you are trapped.

Are you comparing something designed to kill a rat with something designed to help me go to a burger place I like, or leave on time for work?

Re: Not OK, Google

#216

Post by joe563323 »

erdevs wrote: post #188
TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

What I think is interesting is that many of us nerds have probably innocuously fantasized about having a Star Trek-like AI assistant with us, but now that they're taking the first steps towards that, we're starting to realize that in order for it to do everything for us, it has to know everything about us, too.

The big difference is the Star Trek computer wasn't using its data about Kirk to provide him "enhanced advertising experiences", there wasn't a big corporation controlling the computer and no government was accessing the computer's information. A truly user-aligned AI assistant would be great. Ideally in the future these things will not be tied to indirect business models, but rather will be something you buy and all…

Yes. Also running the AI on local computer made sense because there is no incentive to run it on cloud. Since nothing is gained. Star Trek is set on post scarcity economic society. We will get there once basic income becomes the norm in all countries.

Re: Not OK, Google

#217

Post by oldmanjay »

inimino wrote: post #105
empath75 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for quite a large number of people, allowing AIs to make decisions for them will probably be better for them.

That rather depends on the objectives of the AI. If you replace "AI" with "marketing" would you still make that statement?

If you replace "ai" with "your spouse" would that change be as intellectually useless?

Re: Not OK, Google

#218

Post by JustSomeNobody »

Ok, so no personal assistants and high-tech homes for anyone. Done. There, you happy now? Because if Google isn't being fed all that data, it can't provide those things. You either have it or you don't.

Edit: I've made this point before, but your data is a currency. Spend it wisely (or even not at all). It's up to you.

Re: Not OK, Google

#219

Post by [deleted] »

VOYD wrote: post #137
bbctol wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I want mainly from Google is more and easier ways to customize my level of privacy. The article touches on the EFF's stance against incognito modes briefly, but it's an important one; I don't want lack of monitoring to be something I start a separate session for, with a logo of a creepy dude implying I should use this only for spying and pornography. I'd like to get as close as possible to an assistant that reme…

You shouldn't have to spend that much time managing your privacy.

[deleted]

Re: Not OK, Google

#220

Post by Artistry121 »

erdevs wrote: post #188
TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

What I think is interesting is that many of us nerds have probably innocuously fantasized about having a Star Trek-like AI assistant with us, but now that they're taking the first steps towards that, we're starting to realize that in order for it to do everything for us, it has to know everything about us, too.

The big difference is the Star Trek computer wasn't using its data about Kirk to provide him "enhanced advertising experiences", there wasn't a big corporation controlling the computer and no government was accessing the computer's information. A truly user-aligned AI assistant would be great. Ideally in the future these things will not be tied to indirect business models, but rather will be something you buy and all…

Capitan Kirk was a government employee. It's implied the government/StarFleet could access the ships logs.

In the Star Trek world they had no advertising because they were a communist society. Everyone dressed the same or slightly differently based on rank. It's interesting how the new movies play over that.

In Star Trek you couldn't choose your AI. In our world you can. At the start of their development most of them are targeted at selling you stuff - but the industry is young and who knows where it will go.

Post reply on HN