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

AI at Google: our principles

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 418 posts

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#261

Post by bduerst »

LambdaComplex wrote: post #244
ergothus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, since they updated the google news algorithm, I've started getting a pretty diverse set of results. It might be because it picked up that I try to read opposing views, or it might be because the algorithm is terrible, or any other number of reasons, but regardless of the source it's refreshing to see. ...and revealing! The headlines differences between, say, Washington Post, CNN, The Hill, and Fox News for the…

>The headlines differences between, say, Washington Post, CNN, The Hill, and Fox News for the same news blurb is even more dramatic than I'd expect when you put them up side-by-side. Can you give a concrete example of this? I'm definitely interested in seeing how big the differences are

It's pretty evident if you just look. I literally just grabbed some headlines off the North Korea Summit topic:

- WaPo: Trump dangles White House visit for North Korea’s Kim if summit goes well

- Fox News: Trump forced Kim Jong Un to 'beg' for meeting, Giuliani says

- CNN: How is Donald Trump preparing for the huge North Korea summit? He's not.

- Reuters: Latte art and a gym ad: Kim Jong Un's softer image in South Korea

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#262

Post by MarkMMullin »

munificent wrote: post #234
hueving wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves. Automated targeting for a single area is miles away from planning strategy, deploying battle groups, etc.

> This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves. Neither can mines, and look at the decades of devastation those have caused. Now imagine a minefield where the mines get up and chase after you.

I just love hacker news. One of the last bastions of people who think on the internet. This comment is succinct, dead on the money, and absolutely terrifying. My hat is off to you, I had never managed to formulate the risk so concisely. :-) Keep on doing this, and you help keep us all honest.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#263

Post by oh_sigh »

lev99 wrote: post #248
oh_sigh wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no argument - I was only expressing my feelings. And what racial prejudice is there?

61% of Americans have unfavorable views of Islam. [0] Islamophobia is prevalent across the western world. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2015/12/09/what-americ...

Are you in that 61%, and that is why you assumed I was talking about an Islamic suicide bomber?

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#264

Post by cromwellian »

rmk wrote: post #103
finnthehuman wrote: post #18

>2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. They DO realize that the YouTube recommendation algorithm is a political bias reinforcement machine, right? Like, I think it’s fun to talk trash on google because they’re in an increably powerful position, but this one isn’t even banter.

I'm convinced that Google is touting its' 'principles' with a hackneyed blog post probably written by some PR flack. As an American, I'm disappointed, and positively enraged by the hubris on display here. A bunch of (non-US) employees have pressured Google and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. See this for an alternative viewpoint: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary…

I’m a US employee and I’m opposed to it. I’m not what you mean by ‘reigned in’, you mean you want the US government to nationalize companies who don’t want to work on military contracts and force their workers to build weapons?

don’t worry, The DoD will get their AI weapons, image recognition with machine learning is a commodity now, and some other company will end up doing it.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#265

Post by pmoriarty »

the-pigeon wrote: post #217
zaphar wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a gross generalization that people trot out as if it were unassailable but never back it up with any support. Corporations are run by people with a complex set of motivations and constraints in which they make decisions. Some of them make decisions with intent to harm. Some make decisions with intent to help. No one person is automatically turned into a ruthless amoral person just be being employed at a corpo…

It gets complicated but it's more about the employees responsibility to shareholders. Not their personal morals. https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/3pv8bh/is_it_really_tr...

And do you know what can happen when a person's own morals or ethics come in to conflict with their responsibility to shareholders?

They can quit. They can speak out. They can organize. They can petition for change. They could join the more ethical competition (if one exists), or start their own.

This is especially easy to do for employees of a company like Google, with excellent job prospects and often enough "fuck you money" to do whatever they want without serious financial hardship.

They are not hopelessly chained to the corporate profit machine. They can revolt -- that is, if their morals are important enough to them. Otherwise they can stay on and try not to rock the boat, or pretend they don't know or are helpless to act.

A handful of Google employees chose to act and publicly express their objections. This action got results. More employees in companies which act unethically should follow their lead.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#266

Post by Daishiman »

rmk wrote: post #166
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole idea of “protecting the national insterests” of the US creeps me out, as that to me usually means oppressing others, interfering with democracy in foreign countries, and generally sacrificing people outside the US to maintain the global hegemony we promote. I can tell you see it differently, but I hope you see that not all people see promoting “US government interests” as an automatically good thing, given…

I am aware of America's many follies and villainous acts in support of misguided notions. It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world. I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees…

> . It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world.

Ha. Ha ha. Hahahah.

Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests?

Your position is laughable, and the classic, pathetic opinion of the sort of American who hasn't traveled around the world to see that their system of values is not qualitatively different from that of most other developed Western nations.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#267

Post by cromwellian »

Several comments don't seem to understand what the "unfair bias" mentioned is. It doesn't have anything to do with censoring your favorite conservative search result.

The machine learning "bias", at least the low hanging fruit, is learning things like "doctor == male", or "black face = gorilla". How fair is it that facial recognition or photo algorithms are trained on datasets of white faces or not tested for adversarial images that harm black people?

Or if you use translation tools and your daughter translates careers like scientist, engineer, doctor, et al and all of the pronouns come out male?

The point is that if you train AI on datasets from the real world, you can end up reinforcing existing discrimination local to your own culture. I don't know why trying to alleviate this problem triggers some people.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#268

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#269

Post by imbokodo »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #137

As much as I appreciate the conflict of interest here between doing good, making money, helping the US government do its thing, and simply chickening out for PR reasons; I'd like to provide a few sobering thoughts. AI and misappropriation by governments, foreign nations, and worse is going to happen. We might not like it but that cat has long been out of the bag. So, the right attitude is not to decline to do the res…

This was basically the same argument the Zentrumspartei made for voting for the Enabling Act in 1933.

Re: AI at Google: our principles

#270

Post by retrogradeorbit »

All corporations are amoral. They exist to maximise the profit of their shareholders. This is marketing. It is a nice sounding lie. If it were authentic, the last few months wouldn't have happened at Google. For me, it only makes it worse. Because they think we are suckers. Actions speak louder than words. These words ring hollow.
Post reply on HN