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

DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#31

Post by JoshTriplett »

siliconc0w wrote: post #29
draw_down wrote: post #5

I think anger is ok and justified at times, and not always just a consequence of being in the wrong state of mind, etc. I think we're more and more moving to a mindset where anger is just not really ever acceptable, either to feel or to display. But, that's all a bit heavy for what this is trying to accomplish, which is certainly an understandable goal.

Anger is definitely not okay. Ideally, you say - 'This project isn't working because you failed to gather requirements from the right users." or "You spent three months choosing a vendor without proper due diligence who doesn't have a working client library, documentation, or a functioning test endpoint". However the proper way to express anger in our enlightened business environment is passively and non specifically…

> Ideally, you say - 'This project isn't working because you failed to gather requirements from the right users." or "You spent three months choosing a vendor without proper due diligence who doesn't have a working client library, documentation, or a functioning test endpoint".

Both of those statements are completely reasonable. Don't conflate directness with anger, berating, personal attacks, etc. It's entirely possible to be direct without attacking people.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#32

Post by JoshTriplett »

iamatworknow wrote: post #26
coredog64 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True story: I sent a technically correct, succinct email to someone in another division. They complained up to their VP, who talked to my VP, and then the s t rolled downhill on me. Allegedly, the problem was that I hadn't apologized that they were having a bad experience with a service that we offer.

I've also started questioning how I phrase my own work related e-mails. Yesterday I was sent one from a partner saying that some files we were to transfer to their FTP server (yeah, I know it's 2017) were missing. So I logged into the server manually and checked -- the files were there, created at 5 AM, just like they are everyday when the cron job that generates them was run. So I started my response by saying, "I j…

> I just sent the e-mail anyway, but it is interesting that I've been conditioned to question myself over a very innocuous reply to make sure my tone was appropriate, as to not risk offending the other party.

That's a good habit to get into, particularly given how many of our usual non-verbal cues don't come across in email.

I often think to myself "I'm about to send a mail to X hundred/thousand people; it's worth my taking a couple extra moments or even minutes considering exactly how it might come across".

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#33

Post by _iao »

randomerr wrote: post #30

Slippery slope - This seems like a couple of steps away from forced censoring of emails. I can see this becoming mandatory in emails and messages. But who would control the filters? Will extra meta data with content rating be sent along with message?

Google offers their consumers as products to data-mining/ad companies. This is like telling the farmer that ignoring the angry "moos" of their cattle is censorship.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#34

Post by _iao »

cortesoft wrote: post #17
Danihan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light. Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up. It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots alrea…

You absolutely can run the red light, it would just be against the law. That has nothing to do with robots. We have been making laws that limit what we can do for millennia.

Law is literally enforced group-think

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#35

Post by ignoramceisblis »

siliconc0w wrote: post #29
draw_down wrote: post #5

I think anger is ok and justified at times, and not always just a consequence of being in the wrong state of mind, etc. I think we're more and more moving to a mindset where anger is just not really ever acceptable, either to feel or to display. But, that's all a bit heavy for what this is trying to accomplish, which is certainly an understandable goal.

Anger is definitely not okay. Ideally, you say - 'This project isn't working because you failed to gather requirements from the right users." or "You spent three months choosing a vendor without proper due diligence who doesn't have a working client library, documentation, or a functioning test endpoint". However the proper way to express anger in our enlightened business environment is passively and non specifically…

> Anger is definitely not okay.

This sounds like you're saying anger is never okay. Is that true?

Because I can think of many instances when there's something more important than "not being angry", and anger may be necessary to achieve that goal.

I also don't follow your prescription for roundabout criticism. I've worked successfully with many teams where we were much more direct, and we were very pleased with our outcomes, and fellow team members.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#36

Post by __jal »

cortesoft wrote: post #17
Danihan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light. Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up. It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots alrea…

You absolutely can run the red light, it would just be against the law. That has nothing to do with robots. We have been making laws that limit what we can do for millennia.

Right. It is just like explosives. There is no problem leaving agents of rapid chemical reaction lying around where kids may find them, it is the kids.

This also has nothing to do with robots.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#37

Post by nebabyte »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #6
oakwhiz wrote: post #4

I wonder if machine learning will lead to worsening of the echo-chamber problem. "Error: The message cannot be sent because it does not conform to accepted groupthink."

Anytime someone has a scary thought about ML it all comes down to control problems - eg. the machine having the final say about what happens without human being able to override it. In gmail now, if you say "attached" in your email but don't attach something, you can still send the message, it just gives you a warning. You're consistently shown improved interfaces and content because of ML, yet those aren't scary and…

> now

The problem is that

- taking away that control is just one parameter, one preset, one configuration setting away

- We don't exactly have the best track record for consistently picking people we can trust not to fuck with those configuration settings for their own ends

> I think people have seen way too many scary movies about AI, and it's tainted our whole discipline.

I think people have been burned too many times by their 'authorities who know better', and fortunately at least now have a sense of where the slippery slopes are (if not exactly how best to navigate them).

I'd pick erring on the side of caution over sliding down one of those cliffs any day. If you think it's such an impairment to progress, feel free to live in a non-paranoid place; but if "it's only paranoia when someone's not trying to break it for their own gain", as far as I'm concerned it's rarely-to-never going to be 'just paranoia'.

(With that said, this particular post isn't too scary, and just reduces to the "control your hardware" problem. That, and 'control your networks' are the big ones for now.)

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#38

Post by nebabyte »

Danihan wrote: post #12
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime someone has a scary thought about ML it all comes down to control problems - eg. the machine having the final say about what happens without human being able to override it. In gmail now, if you say "attached" in your email but don't attach something, you can still send the message, it just gives you a warning. You're consistently shown improved interfaces and content because of ML, yet those aren't scary and…

Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light. Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up. It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots alrea…

That's a terrible example. He's talking about control and overrides; in that context, a red light is a literal counterexample of your point.

You can violate systems with overrides, and doing so might have consequences, but that's distinct from systems you can't override which was kemendo's point on our fear of where the control lies. (If tomorrow we decide to swap the meaning of red and green, that control is still humans'; the lights won't do anything about it.)

A self-driving car that locks up if you try and run a red would be an example, but as you didn't say that I'm guessing you just missed the point.

Re: DeepBreath: Preventing angry emails with machine learning

#39

Post by Bartweiss »

kartikt wrote: post #23
grinich wrote: post #16

Kind of crazy the Google Cloud team is using gmail.js to build this extension. Gmail.js is a side project by Kartik Talwar who just graduated college and the codebase isn't exactly active. I guess even Google can't find a good way to extend Gmail with their own APIs...

lol

Hah. Cheers for building what's apparently the best option available!
Post reply on HN