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

31–40 of 594 posts

Re: Not OK, Google

#31

Post by arkem »

wyager wrote: post #14
zevyoura wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about an Android phone?

This is the predominant reason I use an iPhone. I don't like a lot of Apple's policies (mostly closed source, although that's where stock android has been gradually headed too) or their silly politics (Getting rid of the gun emoji? Really?), and I would rather go with Google on those grounds, but Apple's incentives with regard to privacy actually align with mine. In particular, they are a product company, not an adve…

What makes Google an advertising company and Apple a product company? Since both make products and sell advertising.

Obviously advertising is more important to Google than it is to Apple but at what point does Apple become an advertising company and Google a product company? Is there a revenue threshold? A branding threshold?

Edit: I'm not saying Google isn't an advertising company. I'm asking what makes Google (but not Apple) an advertising company.

Re: Not OK, Google

#32

Post by bbctol »

ubercore wrote: post #11

Google Now has done the same for me, told me how long it will take to get to a bar I frequent. My reaction was quite exactly "Oh that's neat, thanks!" and I went and had a great burger that night. Totally OK for me Google. I respect that people have different privacy thresholds, but I think the fact that it's different for everyone is being lost in articles like this.

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 remembers relevant data on where I go and how long it takes, but ignores my browsing history to psychologically manipulate me into buying things--of course, that needs a different revenue model.

Re: Not OK, Google

#33

Post by quickben »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #18
usgroup wrote: post #8

Prerequisite to personal AI worth a damn is data about you worth a damn. It'd seem windows 10 is setting Microsoft up for this. Google is following suite with its own hardware. Central task is to infer what you want and help you achieve it, but further, your AI can ask you questions too to work out all sorts of things subtely. i think eventually, we'll think of I personal information as a commodity or "raw material"…

My problem isn't with the AI having my data; it's with the company that created the AI having my data. That might be necessary to make an AI assistant practical using current technology, but it's not an inherent requirement.

Arguably, at a scale, it is cheaper for every separate device to process it's own voice-to-text and automate things.

But, doing it offline, has no incentive for advertising companies.

Universities / home automation companies / etc would be probably be more incentivized to develop that.

So, any advances in AI, if they come in the 'always online' will come with strings attached. It is not your AI optimization software, it's somebody's else.

Re: Not OK, Google

#34

Post by nine_k »

someone7x wrote: post #13
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.

I think there's an additional nuance, that of Google knowing everything about us. If I hacked together my own home automation AI system it would need to know everything about me too and that worries me far less.

...until it's broken into.

I suspect that chances of would-be burglars or identity thieves breaking into Google data are pretty slim, in comparison to a home-installed system.

OTOH both Google and a private person can be strong-armed by a court order, or even a three-letter agency, to open up their AI knowledge vaults.

Re: Not OK, Google

#35

Post by woah »

AJ007 wrote: post #15

Something to think about -- making the assumption that in the future, a bunch chunk of things currently done with search engines and forms are done by voice command: Ok Google, order new toilet paper -- order is routed to any ecommerce provider which outbids everyone else to fulfill the order. Alexa, order new toilet paper -- order copies previous toilet paper order and goes to merchant with lowest advertised price t…

Order a new iPaper cartridge from the Apple Store. $39.99.

Re: Not OK, Google

#36

Post by ubercore »

bbctol wrote: post #32
ubercore wrote: post #11

Google Now has done the same for me, told me how long it will take to get to a bar I frequent. My reaction was quite exactly "Oh that's neat, thanks!" and I went and had a great burger that night. Totally OK for me Google. I respect that people have different privacy thresholds, but I think the fact that it's different for everyone is being lost in articles like this.

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…

Does https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols?pli=1 do what you're asking for? It's fairly fine-grained.

Re: Not OK, Google

#37

Post by quickben »

Yhippa wrote: post #29

I'm willing to sacrifice an amount of privacy now for future potential improvements to my life.

How about for potential risks? What if thieves/criminals get a hold of that data? 'Oh he goes to the pool every day 2-3 and lives alone with no home alarms'.

Re: Not OK, Google

#38

Post by nabla9 »

usgroup wrote: post #8

Prerequisite to personal AI worth a damn is data about you worth a damn. It'd seem windows 10 is setting Microsoft up for this. Google is following suite with its own hardware. Central task is to infer what you want and help you achieve it, but further, your AI can ask you questions too to work out all sorts of things subtely. i think eventually, we'll think of I personal information as a commodity or "raw material"…

>i think eventually, we'll think of I personal information as a commodity or "raw material" and regulate its extraction and trade as such.

I don't think there is eventuality. We must fight hard now to change our society. We live in a era that determines how future will look like. Politics is path dependent and wrong choices now can have consequences that last centuries.

Economic information asymmetry[1] over consumers and competition benefits few large corporations that can leverage it over customers and competition. They will fight for tooth and nail to prevent consumer regulation. Governments have additional agendas.

1: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/lau...

Re: Not OK, Google

#39

Post by corobo »

mrgreenfur wrote: post #7

This is literally the perfect end-game for an advertising company: total awareness of need under the guise of 'optimization' or 'AI enhancement'. They can see what your'e searching for, where you're going, when you run out of Mayo in your GoogleFridgeAppAssistant. What better way to offer ads than EVERY time you have a want? It's an advertising utopia!

If they tag on a "where the heck did I leave x" search engine while building out the technology I'm down for the MayoGoogleFridgeAppAss

Re: Not OK, Google

#40

Post by ska »

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.

"Knowing" in some sense everything about us is not the same as owning that information or trading in it. There are many other possible approaches to applying ML to our personal needs and data, so it is worth being careful about not conflating issues with a particular implementation and issues with the area as a whole.
Post reply on HN