5 ms·
"“There’s excitement from the tech press, but we’re also starting to see some negative threads about it being terrifying, ready to take humans’ jobs,” wrote Cou
by itg 11y ago
"“There’s excitement from the tech press, but we’re also starting to see some negative threads about it being terrifying, ready to take humans’ jobs,” wrote Courtney Hohne, a director of communications at Google and the spokeswoman for Google X.
Hohne went on to ask her colleagues to “distance X from this video,” and wrote, “we don’t want to trigger a whole separate media cycle about where BD really is at Google.”
“We’re not going to comment on this video because there’s really not a lot we can add, and we don’t want to answer most of the Qs it triggers,” she wrote."
I found this to be disappointing. More concerned about their brand image than trying to push robotics research forward.
- CodeCube 11y agoThis is incredibly disappointing to read. If they can't deal with the cultural repercussions of what they're building, then they're right, they need to get out of that game. Let someone else take the robotics helm
- FranOntanaya 11y agoPerhaps there's a strong correlation between the people that get terrified by automation and the people that click ads.
- slang800 11y agoMaybe, but does anyone think about the ad-buying system that they are supporting before they click on an ad? Personally, I doubt that ethical consumerism runs that deep.
- slang800 11y agoEspecially since the robots that BD is making are prohibitively expensive, and will remain that way for several years. If anything is going to take away human jobs, it's the software at the core of Google's business, which costs nothing to deploy and is inherently better than humans... Unlike robots that cost more than a typical human makes in their lifetime and are only now beginning to gain proper mobility. If anything, the real concerns about their research should be their ties to the DoD and the military use of robots.
- WalterSear 11y agoGiven that Courtney is the Director of Communications, she may be overly focused on her own position's perspective on the news.
- dbcurtis 11y agoYes, and when a person like that is calling the shots on strategy, the song is over. Companies lead from the PR department are on trajectory to crater.
- WalterSear 11y agoIs she calling the shots? I took it to mean she was superciliously talking out of her ass to the reporter.
- daveguy 11y agoEspecially since she wasn't talking to the reporter. This was leaked internal emails. She was doing her job, inside Google.
- WalterSear 11y agoAhh. Still, we don't have the actual context: this could just be a department head bloviating on a thread she probably shouldn't have been included on in the first place.
- sixQuarks 11y agoOne of Ray Kurzweil's predictions is that the exponential growth of technology is really going to surprise a lot of people when we start hitting the hockey growth phase. What looks to be 20 years out may be getting solved in 2 or 3 years, or even sooner. Perhaps google is making such progress in AI, they sense the public may turn against them if they have both AI and robots. I'm probably wrong, but just a theory. Kurzweil does work for Google by the way.
- maaku 11y agoThe thing about smooth exponentials is that "hocky stick growth" is always 5-10 years away.
- Houshalter 11y agoReal world exponentials are not necessarily smooth.
- maaku 11y agoBut if it is actually an exponential than the upswing is aberrational.
- seizethecheese 11y agoAlternatively, you are always hitting the hockey-stick of 5-10 years ago.
- Terr_ 11y agoWhile Kurzweil generates predictions which are bold and falsifiable, there's an unfortunate tendency: The bold ones are not falsifiable, and the falsifiable ones are not bold.
- throwaway2048 11y agoevery phase of an exponential curve is hockey stick shaped, thats what defines it as a thing.
- deleted 11y ago
- gohrt 11y agoNot just brand image, but actual customer decisions in the market. Look at how the self-driving car has evolved to look more friendly, for no technical reason, so the public doesn't resist it. It's arrogant to push something forward in the face of widespread opposition, instead of finding an agreeable way forward.
- zxcvvcxz 11y agoGood for everyone else. This is exactly how startups get their opportunities. There's always a bigger, better company that can do what you want to do right now but won't.
- elaineo 11y agoI think it was just an excuse used as a cover-up. Sounds like cultural issues were at play with the split.
- sirclueless 11y ago> I found this to be disappointing. More concerned about their brand image than trying to push robotics research forward. This is a director of communications we are talking about. Literally the beginning, middle, and end of her job description is "Consider our brand image." If she sounds overly concerned about Google X's brand image, that's because it's her job. Google pays her so that the rest of their employees don't have to be so concerned. Basically every company on the planet with more than 20 people in it has someone making strategic decisions like this. The only difference here is we have a whistleblower reporting what she says internally. There's just about zero to learn about Google's priorities from her priorities, except that none of her immediate superiors is banging the drum for a PR battle over DoD robots.
- Retra 11y agoI guess it's her job then to know that this kind of attitude is disappointing, isn't it?
- sirclueless 11y agoThis wasn't a public statement. It was an email to colleagues. "Let's not comment" is, I think, the default position of PR departments everywhere on everything unless there is a crisis or a marketing campaign going on. Throwing fuel on a fire isn't wise unless you want there to be a fire.