22 ms·

AI at Google: our principles

644 points by dannyrosen 8y ago

ISL 8y ago
The best way to lead is by example. Thank you, Googlers. The choice not to accept business is a hard one. I've recently turned away from precision-metrology work where I couldn't be certain of its intent; in every other way, it was precisely the sort of work I'd like to do, and the compensation was likely to be good. These stated principles are very much in line with those that I've chosen; a technology's primary purpose and intent must be for non-offensive and non-surveillance purposes. We should have a lot of respect for a company's clear declaration of work which it will not do.
- MarkMMullin 8y ago
  That's a pity - as someone in stereo machine vision, metrology is something we really really need for a huge range of applications - that said, if its feeding an autonomous armed targeting system, I agree. We really need to decide as a species we want to continue being a species and realize that solving problems with each other by force is coming to an end. I'm not speaking from a pacifist viewpoint, just a practical one - there's pretty much no way we're not going to continue evolving vision systems in all their hyperspectral glory, and they can do a lot of good - we just cannot arm them. Ever. And surveillance is a complex question - there are enough positives it can offer not to rule it out a priori
  - ISL 8y ago
    Agreed regarding surveillance. In my book, working on Landsat, JWST, or LISA = awesome. I will only direct expertise toward an imaging system like Keyhole or targeting/guidance systems if our society faces a clear and acute foreign threat.
    - MarkMMullin 8y ago
      What about street level city/town surveillance? Of course all the cop shops want to feed all their wants/warrants into it. I have no problem with this if there is a legal framework that supports it. More importantly, there are toddlers that get loose from their mothers because they are fundamentally greased pigs, or there are older members of our society who may be prone to wandering off in a daze - the ability to locate them within a very few minutes would be a good thing indeed. My own take is that I will look, I will try and recognize, but I will NEVER target. Machine is too good, sacks of meat like us have no prayer. That said, I've talked to a couple of cop shops, my position is that I will work with them when there is a framework that defines a legal basis for that level of tracking of people who clearly wish not to be tracked, even if they are bad actors. It's not a question of how far away you are, its a question of what you will track, why you will track, and what structure our society has put in place to get the benefits, not the risks. Looping back to the main point of the post, looking is OK, tracking requires societal governance, and any autonomous lethal capability, never mind action, should be absolutely forbidden, not just by law, but because we don't all want to die.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Russia reportedly has armed robots capable of operating autonomously and they preemptively refused to honor any ban, and other nations are developing their own. As terrifying as the prospect is, it's already happening.
    - MarkMMullin 8y ago
      Yes. I can only refuse to play and hope the Russians et al come to their senses, the United Nations starts to work better, etc. If we go down that road, it will be the end of most of us, if not all of us. We really have no chance against a machine that's decided to shoot us. As a species we need to have zero tolerance for it - we won't be rendered extinct by snazzy terminators, we'll be killed by the 21st century version of a Victorian steam loom. Its truly a horrible problem, because the solution can't be creating autonomous systems to kill other autonomous systems. The rest of the distinction is just data. The only way to win is not to play.
      - ryandrake 8y ago
        That’s the problem with mutually assured destruction weapons (which AI bots most surely qualify as). If you accept as a given that at least one faction is building them, then the other factions’ only choices are: 1. Build your own and pray for a Cold War stalemate and 2. Don’t build your own and guarantee you’ll be destroyed.
        MarkMMullin 8y ago
        MAD was based on the concept of the 'Nuclear Club' - the barrier to entry was the mass defect ratio, which you'd have to calculate on your own, and then you'd confront nation-state level expenses of turning that knowledge into practical engineering. It had an inherent cap on the number of possible players. Not saying it was nice, it was just manageable. The barriers to entry here are much lower. For smaller players, lethal drone prices would be at the several hundred dollar range with a six digit investment in infrastructure, and I'd have full confidence in American defense contractors to drive that price much lower, in order to protect their margins, and at scale, they'll mess up their inventory control. The only choice is to recognize as a species this cannot be done, or it will be done. This equation is not about the few agreeing not to kill the many, it is about the many realizing that this is a road to an extinction level event. I don't mean to be dramatic, but I have a system I could make kill if I wanted to, and I paid for the whole thing on credit cards. Its too easy and too efficient. The number of players can't be counted on one hand, it's a tech lone individuals could deploy. If they do then others will, you net an exponential growth rate in deployment, and then the game is over. At the end of the day, all of the pieces are already here - a motivated individual can do a lot of damage, several motivated individuals or groups can get into a squabble and the damage rises exponentially. It is simply not an avenue we can accept. The limit to entry is not financial, it is not technical, it only can be that we must not. I'm pleased Google has defined their ethics as a company, I just argue in this case we need to define our ethics as a species. We cannot build these because if we do they will get loose, they will be used, and it will be a tragedy. We must all agree that arming autonomous machines is beyond the pale, for any one, for any reason. As soon as one is built, your destruction is guaranteed, regardless of whether you too build one. .
- chellam 8y ago
  Turning away will slow things down but AI for military applications will happen. Someone will fill the void.
  - staticassertion 8y ago
    That doesn't make it ok to be the one to fill it.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      On a geopolitical level, it does. It's far better for the world that the United States developed atomic weapons before either Germany or the Soviets did.
      - RyanZAG 8y ago
        It's a good point, and if anybody thinks an arms race isn't already happening then they are very naive. While we're debating the morals of this, the Chinese, Russians and many others are trying to make it happen. For all we know, they may have already succeeded, and we're discussing the morals of it while it's already in full production a few thousand miles away. The relevant research papers, knowledge and skills are widely available across the world. There are some advanced courses at Chinese universities right now that can only be seen as 'AI for military'.
        philwelch 8y ago
        And I can almost guarantee that, unlike the US, the Russian and Chinese militarized AI programs are not optimized for minimizing civilian casualties.
        marricks 8y ago
        Really? Looking at drone strike causualities you’d have no clue how much the US even tries. Its funny cause I haven’t heard of large scale Chinese or Russian drones flying over other countries targeting terrorists but ending up murdering children on more than one occasion. Perhaps these technologies can be just evil and the US is the only country powerful enough to get away with using them. I really have no stomach for just a vapid excuse, and I cannot fathom how so many people fall for it.
- Terretta 8y ago
  > ”non-surveillance purposes” Not what it says. It says: “...surveillance violating internationally accepted norms.” Thanks to leaks, we have a glimpse of the new normal.
godelmachine 8y ago
I was kind of reminded of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics while going through the Principles, especially the 7th one.
- notfed 8y ago
  3. Be built and tested for safety. 4. Be accountable to people. 6. Uphold high standards of scientific excellence.
capitalisthakr 8y ago
Reminded me of their first principle, and how well they did with that one: "Don't be evil"
- beaner 8y ago
  Pretty well, all things considered.
  - zanedb 8y ago
    Elaborate?
    - snorrah 8y ago
      Well I’m guessing everyone will have a slightly different viewpoint, but my use of google services over the last 15? years has not had me feeling they’ve done anything evil to me. Yes I’m sure they have a huge swell of data about me, but so far the use of that data has not caused me any suffering, or pain, or misfortune etc. “Don’t be evil” is quite a poignant statement. If they were to say, “don’t do bad things” then I wouldn’t have quite the defence. But no, for at least me, a sample size of one, they have not been evil.
  - mtgx 8y ago
    3 antitrust cases in the EU (Shopping, Android, and Adsense), and a couple of FTC antitrust cases im the US (one of which Eric Schmidt lobbied away through Obama) say otherwise. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/18/google_had_obamas_ear_on_antitrust_probe/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/18/google_had_obamas_e... If that's supposed to be "our best", we're in trouble.
    - randcraw 8y ago
      Antitrust isn't about committing a crime so much as competing so well that the the company sucks the oxygen from the room. Becoming a monopoly isn't evil. It's an excess of success. It's the responsibility of government antitrust law, not Google, to 'un-distort' the playing field and resurrect competition / opportunity. No one expects a corporation to voluntarily give away marketshare to ensure it doesn't run afoul of antitrust law, just because the company also vowed not to be evil. A negotiated settlement with regulators is exactly where this kind of matter should lead; no crime done.
juliend2 8y ago
> Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. > We want to be clear that while we are not developing AI for use in weapons, we will continue our work with governments and the military in many other areas. These include cybersecurity, training, military recruitment, veterans’ healthcare, and search and rescue. I wonder if this is an official response to the people at Google[1] who were protesting[2] against Project Maven. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-... [2] https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.pdf https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter....
- glitchc 8y ago
  I concur. This post seems to be specifically targeting the negative perception the resignations were generating.
  - ryanobjc 8y ago
    Is there any room in your cynicism for any other view? For example, maybe Google leadership did hear the complaints, then realized what was happening and what could happen, and decided that something needed to be done to create and uphold values. I don't approve of defensive cynicism, I don't believe it makes a better world. In fact, I think that defensive cynicism is the reason why the world sucks. Let me guess, you don't vote because "all politicians are liars"? How's that working out for you?
    - yarrel 8y ago
      > For example, maybe Google leadership did hear the complaints, then realized what was happening and what could happen, and decided that something needed to be done to create and uphold values. I don't find the idea of Google's leadership being as out of touch and out of control as that would require to be more comforting than the idea that they are responsive to bad PR. > Let me guess, you don't vote because "all politicians are liars"? How's that working out for you? Let me guess, you vote for the candidate with the worst track record to prove that you aren't cynical about them. How's that working out for you and Mr. Trump?
Isamu 8y ago
> AI applications we will not pursue [...] Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. [...] Weapons or other technologies This statement will have zero impact on subsequent sensational headlines or posters here claiming Google is making killbots.
- ironjunkie 8y ago
  Well, now you are talking about philosophical questions. - Is pursuing an AI that kills 10 bad guys but saves 20 good ones overall bad? - Is pursuing an AI that doesn't kill anyone but pushes us to watch ads and lose our life on youtube overall bad?
  - fredley 8y ago
    Can you really build an AI that can identify bad guys? What if it's a good guy in the wrong uniform?
    - alehul 8y ago
      I think the argument is more so that the military killing 'bad guys' will protect 'good guys' in America long-term, if not civilians local to the country in question. Not commenting on whether that's accurate; just trying to better articulate what I believe is the above poster's philosophical argument.
    - pnw_hazor 8y ago
      Then we can just do it Russian style. Kill everyone.
  - GenerocUsername 8y ago
    - Yes : Directly responsible for death. AI is likely not the only means to have stopped those 'bad-guys'. - Depends : How humans choose to spend their lives is their own issue. Personal responsibility dictates it is each individuals choice how to live their lives. Youtube is not some resource needed for life.
  - 8y ago
gaius 8y ago
The fact that “make money” isn’t on the list means that you can’t believe any of it. Also point 5 is an outright, blatant falsehood given Google’s track record and indeed entire business model.
- kolbe 8y ago
  This is clearly the only reasonable response to these 'principles'. Google must have a strong employee presence here.
Mononokay 8y ago
"Principles"
- sctb 8y ago
  You've been posting a lot of unsubstantive comments. Could you please try to increase the amount of information? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - Mononokay 8y ago
    Sure thing; going into the future I'll make sure to; and sorry for breaking guidelines a bit. I was thinking I should probably take a break from HN until the current news cycle's run its course (way too many things happening that I'm tempted to reply with one-liners to; works on Twitter, doesn't work here), and should have went with my intuition + will now.
DrNuke 8y ago
I do not know, really... if not them, someone else will do however. Google has a competitive advantage (they can hire & pay well the smartest minds on Earth) and is letting it go? EDIT: going to be even more controversial but needs to be said that Google just can’t stay neutral here imho, they either work for autonomus killing machines or against them in order to preserve their market position and brand
- fatjokes 8y ago
  I think Google's point isn't that it can't be done, or even that it shouldn't be done, but rather simply they won't do it.
  - DrNuke 8y ago
    Ok but what if it does not make sense from a business perspective in the mid or long term?
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      That begs the question.
    - John_KZ 8y ago
      If Google renews defense contracts, I'm going to simply pull the plug, and I suspect many more will follow. Changing your email address is hard, but the bulk of the task will be over in a few hours. If financial sense is the only reason, then still yes. Why? Google works for the military, gets a bad rep, usage plummets. It's not unheard of before. Of course they might renew the contracts secretly (and I'm afraid they might) but secret work is more expensive and hard to keep secret for long at large scales. Also, looking at the very long term: Making killbots creates instability which creates war which damages the purchase power of their users which creates less profits for the shareholders.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  If I don't build these gas chambers, somebody else will, so i might as well pocket the money. You don't see a problem with that position?
ruseOps 8y ago
“Hey Google, give me three concrete examples of fair bias.”
- inlined 8y ago
  Maybe people who had certain training or education will perform better for a particular job function. There might be biases affecting who gets into a school, but from a set of Stanford grads maybe certain courses, professors, or a cohort could be learned to be ideal candidates. [Note: I work at Google but have no insight into AI projects]
- sowbug 8y ago
  Spam detection. Driving directions. OCR.
- tlb 8y ago
  Bias has a very broad meaning in AI work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff Most AI/ML/Statistics procedures use Occam's razor: prefer the simplest explanation of the data. That's a bias (toward simpler explanations), but not "unfair" to anyone.
  - finnthehuman 8y ago
    Oh, so they mean the boring technical definition that nobody reading the page cares about? We can trust google will try to build tools that are effective for googles buisness goals without it being proclaimed in a statement of principles.
ruseOps 8y ago
“Hey Google, give me three concrete examples of ‘fair bias’.”
finnthehuman 8y ago
>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.
- eclectic 8y ago
  Their bias is fair, you see.
- foobaw 8y ago
  They circumvent this by using the word "avoid." Avoiding and not doing are two different things.
  - gimmefreedom 8y ago
    avoid |əˈvoid| verb keep away from or stop oneself from doing (something) Instead, I think Google just doesn't mind lying[1]. 1. e.g., "Don't be evil"
  - randcraw 8y ago
    I don't know how you do something and avoid doing something at the same time.
    - kchr 8y ago
      Personally, I think the term "avoid" is more of an ideal/pragmatic stance ("would be ideal not to") than the binary "will do"/" will not do"
- ergothus 8y ago
  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 same news blurb is even more dramatic than I'd expect when you put them up side-by-side. None of which contradicts your point, I just wanted to flag a happy instance where the result wasn't just "yo dawg".
foobaw 8y ago
I wished they could define and clarify what "harm" means.
paulgpetty 8y ago
So was the “Don’t be evil” principle or mantra that we’re all disappointed about documented in a blog post? For some reason I thought it was on a page like this: https://www.google.com/about/our-commitments/ https://www.google.com/about/our-commitments/ Either way it’s just a statement on a webpage which has all the permanence of a sign in their HQ lobby. It’s going to be hard to convince people that statements like this from a Google, a Facebook, or an Uber really mean anything — especially long term. Will their next leadership team or CEO carry on with this?
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Don't be evil is on the Code of Conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
hooande 8y ago
The military is using open source software to sort images, with consulting help from Google. No killbots, no acts of war, just doing the only thing that machine learning has any practical use for. Science fiction writing is hard. I don't know why all of you are doing it for no pay. We can't judge Google for what we think they might do. And so far, they're just using ml in the real world
whazor 8y ago
But how? Let's assume I personally offer artificial intelligence services. So I provide some API's where my customers upload training and testing data, and I return a trained ML model. I do not know who uses my service or what they are doing... Furthermore, if ban the military. Then another company could do it for them. So every customer would have to explain their activities?
- j2kun 8y ago
  FTA: > As we develop and deploy AI technologies, we will evaluate likely uses in light of the following factors: [...] Nature and uniqueness: whether we are making available technology that is unique or more generally available Presumably this means they would allow the US military to use their cloud services like any other customer. This is almost certain not to happen because of the classified nature of their data. Also, this is meant to guide how Google decides what to develop, not (AFAICT) meant as a terms of service for customers. Though I bet Google still reserves the right to block accounts it decides are using its platform in a way they think is immoral. Disclaimer: I work for Google.
- kevinmchugh 8y ago
  Banks are required to do this for at least money-laundering purposes. It's called Know Your Customer.
bobcostas55 8y ago
>Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. I recommend _The impossibility of “fairness”: a generalized impossibility result for decisions_[0] and _Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores_[1] [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf
- tlb 8y ago
  It's true that you can't ever be perfectly fair, for every reasonable definition of fair. However, you can easily mess up and be very unfair. So even though there is no "perfect", there is still a continuum of bad to good.
  - eanzenberg 8y ago
    Your definition of "fair" is some other groups definition of "unfair". And I'm not even talking about pro- anti- nazis, I'm talking about more mundane leanings.
- ramblerman 8y ago
  Not sure why you are being downvoted. This is a reasonable sentiment. It's similar to people who want to lose their accent when learning a language. It's something that is impossible to do, you can't not speak with an accent. The way to lose your accent is to pick a new one, and begin emulating it.
- kanox 8y ago
  > Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. This very high up and is written in a way which would explicitly allow "fair bias". This means activists will have a free hand to use their positions at Google to enforce their vision of political orthodoxy.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    A search engine with no biases whatsoever is useless. The whole point is to be biased towards articles that users find more useful, not to give a random sample of the Internet (whatever that means). I'm sure there will be internal debate over what biases are good ones to keep and nobody gets a free hand. But as a policy, it doesn't restrict Google's options very much.
reilly3000 8y ago
New hot job title: AI ombudsman.
- criddell 8y ago
  This is Google you are talking about. It's more like hot new script: ai_ombudsman.py
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
>4. Be accountable to people. >We will design AI systems that provide appropriate opportunities for feedback, relevant explanations, and appeal. Our AI technologies will be subject to appropriate human direction and control. Youtube moderation and automated account banning combined with the inability to actually get in contact with a human show they they have a long way to go with this principle.
- MarkMMullin 8y ago
  That is going to be a tough one, and possibly even impossible based on where current ML tech is leading. A laudable goal, but taking a complex system with a training time of many GPU years and asking it how it came up with the answer basically nets a very large pile of numbers (weights) tied together in a complex multidimensional relationship that we just plain can't follow outside of the system. Right now the practical focus is on trying to stop feeding the systems biased data. Your example is spot on, save for the 'not able to talk to someone' which is just googz being too aloof and too cheap
amaccuish 8y ago
Also on this topic, from students who would interview at Google. It's important to hear how the upcoming generation, who would actually be doing this work, feel https://gizmodo.com/students-pledge-to-refuse-job-interviews-at-google-in-p-1826614260 https://gizmodo.com/students-pledge-to-refuse-job-interviews... [Students Pledge to Refuse Job Interviews at Google in Protest of Pentagon Work]
- edhu2017 8y ago
  From my observations in my college, Google is starting to become the new "Microsoft". It is still seen as well paying, and nerdy but it is no longer new and exciting. Facebook is taking over Google's spot as the well established but still exciting tech company, while Airbnb seems to be taking FB's spot as the new and exciting tech company.
  - davesque 8y ago
    I have rather the opposite impression of Facebook. They seem sort of tired and are moving onto the same level as Uber in terms of ethical conduct.
    - londons_explore 8y ago
      Facebooks business seems to be suffering in various dimensions... The key figure, minutes of time spent on the site in total, is being warped to include Instagram and Whatsapp, trying to hide the fact that Facebook itself is dying.
EpicEng 8y ago
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 was no discussion about the morality of the matter (I'm not taking any moral stance here just to be clear.) Once this became an internal and external PR issue, Google held a series of all hands meetings and claimed that this was a "small project" and that the AI would not be used to kill people. While technically true, those same internal emails show that Google expected this to become a much larger project over time, eventually bringing in about $250M / year[1]. So even then they were being a bit disingenuous by focusing only on the current scope of the deal. And here we are now with a release from the CEO talking about morality and "principles" well after the fact. I doubt many people do anyway, but I'm not buying the "these are our morals" bit. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/06/01/report-google-thought-military-drone-project-would.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/06/01/report-g...
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  There was a similar "comming to jesus moment" with Google in China. They saw how they had to do the right thing after years of censoring and manipulating data for the chinese government, but only after they got massively hacked, blocked, and essentially forced out of china... However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    > However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing. Agreed, and I try not to be too hard on them. I don't think it's a black and white issue personally, the only issue I have is how this implies Google always wants to do the right thing from the get go, which very much seems to not be the case here.
    - killjoywashere 8y ago
fortythirteen 8y ago
> We want to be clear that while we are not developing AI for use in weapons... we will be developing AI for things that have weapons attached to them. We hope our lawyerly semantics are enough to fool you rubes for as long as it takes us to pocket that sweet military money.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  reminds me of the joke >"It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a NukeChicago procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a NukeCity procedure, to which Chicago could be given as a parameter."
foolinaround 8y ago
> Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. AI will likely reflect the bias of its training set, which likely reflects the bias of the creators. So, it is fair to say that AI will be biased?
- cpeterso 8y ago
  There is definitely a risk of machines learning to reinforce existing but undesirable bias in real-world training data. There is research into documenting forms of bias so they can be recognized and countered when selecting training data. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-risk-of-machine-learning-bias-and-how-to-prevent-it/ https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-risk-of-machine-lear... https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/279927 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/279927
bovermyer 8y ago
Just follow the three laws of robotics and you'll be fine.
davesque 8y ago
It's good that they're openly acknowledging the misstep here. However, I wish that the "will not pursue" section got the same bold-faced treatment as the one above it. It seems appropriate at this point for industry leaders in this field, and governments, to come together with a set of Geneva-convention-like rules which address the ethical risks inherent in this space.
- benatkin 8y ago
  It certainly leaves the door open. Reminds me of that saying that no ethically trained software engineer would write a DestroyBaghdad procedure, but would write a DestroyCity procedure to chick Baghdad could be passed as a parameter.
skapadia 8y ago
Under "AI applications we will not pursue", its telling that the first rule basically allows them to override all the subsequent ones - "where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks". "We believe" gives them a lot of leeway.
- londons_explore 8y ago
  "We believe that AI powered nukes will lead to world peace when nobody dares go up against them, therefore we're going ahead with the project."
confounded 8y ago
This is pretty weak tea. It seems to completely justify working on anything, as long as the tiny part that Google engineers touch is software, and they aren't personally pulling triggers. > 1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints. Is this "We have solved the trolley problem"? Benefits to who? US Consumers? Shareholders? Someone in Afghanistan with the wrong IMEI who's making a phone-call? Without specifying this, this statement completely fails as a restraint on behavior. For an extrajudicial assassination via drone, is 'the technology' the re-purposed consumer software to aid target selection, or the bomb? Presumably the latter in every case. > 2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. This leaves the vast majority of military applications in scope. By this definition, Project Maven (the cause of resignations/protests) meets the criteria of not "directly facilitat[ing] injury to people". It selects who and what to cause injury too at lower cost and accuracy, to scale up the total number of causable injuries per dollar. > 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. Google set the norms for surveillance by being at the leading edge of it. It's pretty clear from Google's positioning that they consider data stored with them for monetization and distribution to Goverments completely fine. Governments do, too. And of course, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."[0]. > 4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights. It's difficult to see how this could be anything but a circular argument that whatever the US military thinks is appropriate, is accepted as appropriate, because the US military thinks it is. The most widely accepted definitions of human rights are the UN's, and the least controversial of those is the Right to Life. There are legal limits to this right, but by definition, extrajudicial assassinations via drone strike are in contravention of it. Even if they're Googley extrajudicial assassinations. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid...
- jadedhacker 8y ago
  Was going to say much the same thing, thank you. You said it much better.
kolbe 8y ago
Trust is like a mirror: you can fix it if it's broken, but you'll always see the crack in that motherfucker's reflection.
locacorten 8y ago
> We believe that AI should: > > 1. Be socially beneficial. > 2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. > 3. Be built and tested for safety. > 4. Be accountable to people. > 5. Incorporate privacy design principles. > 6. Uphold high standards of scientific excellence. > 7. Be made available for uses that accord with these principles. While I like this list a lot, I don't understand why this is AI-specific, and not software-specific. Is Google using the word "AI" to mean "software"?
- sidcool 8y ago
  Great point. AI is not the only way to reinforce biases.
exabrial 8y ago
Google: We take Pentagon contracts to track people's location with our AI. That's so bad. Also Google: We will totally use our AI to 'legally' track a single mom that clicked a fine print EULA once while signing into our app. That's totally fine. It's different mmk?
- exabrial 8y ago
  Oh and if you want Google Maps to retain your search history, you have to turn on Global Search History across all Google products. It's impossible to keep a local file on your phone that would have the history in it just for that app. Totally impossible. That data needs to be sent to us.
  - exabrial 8y ago
    Which we forgot to mention when you turn that on we begin recording your location history.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  This comment comes off as intentionally disingenuous to me. In the latter case, it's about serving up ads. In the former case, it's literally about assassinating people from the sky. They really are different.
  - exabrial 8y ago
    Both can be used for malicious prosecution.
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
The principles state that they will not make weapons. However the latest report I’ve seen states that their current contract for the military ends some time in 2019. [1] So while google says it will not make weapons, it seems that for the next 6-18 months it will continue to do so. Does anyone know when in 2019 the contact expires? It seems odd to come out with a pledge not to make weapons while continuing to make weapons (assuming that is what they are doing). (Full disclosure, I am a contractor at an Alphabet company, but I don’t know much about project Maven. These are my own opinions.) [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/1/17418406/google-maven-drone-imagery-ai-contract-expire https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/1/17418406/google-maven-dron...
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I believe it continues through March 2019.
sethbannon 8y ago
Love this leadership from Jeff Dean and the team at Google AI. Technology can be an incredible lever for positive change, but can just as easily be a destructive force. Always import to think principally about how to ensure the former is the case and not the latter.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
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 research and pretend it is not happening but to make sure it ends up in the right hands and is done on the right terms. Google, being at the forefront of research here, has a heavy responsibility to both do well and good. I don't believe Google declining to weaponize AI, which lets face it is what all this posturing is about, would be helpful at all. It would just lead to somebody else doing the same, or worse. There's some advantage to being involved: you can set terms, drive opinions, influence legislation, and dictate roadmaps. The flip side is of course that with great power comes great responsibility. I grew up in a world where 1984 was science fiction and then became science fact. I worry about ubiquitous surveillance, un-escapable AI driven life time camera surveillance, and worse. George Orwell was a naive fool compared to what current technology enables right now. That doesn't mean we should shy away from doing the research. Instead make sure that those cameras are also pointed at those most likely to abuse their privileges. That's the only way to keep the system in check. The next best thing to preventing this from happening is rapidly commodotizing the technology so that we can all keep tabs on each other. So, Google: do the research and continue to open source your results.
- imbokodo 8y ago
  This was basically the same argument the Zentrumspartei made for voting for the Enabling Act in 1933.
  - Gorgor 8y ago
    What was their argument? Do you have a link?
- 75dvtwin 8y ago
  @jillesvangurp. I am arguing in my post above, that there is a solution. Solution is in 'fragmentation of power'. Yes it has its costs, but it is just a much better model. Be it economic fragmentation of power (via de-monopolization), or political (via explicitly enumerating federal powers, and then splitting the rest for states to manage), or moral authority power (by ensuring multi-cultural, multi-view, no-moral-police environment). Google cannot remain the monopoly it is. And US gov has to accelerate its breakout.
qbaqbaqba 8y ago
1) money, 2) profit, 3) revenue.
dhimes 8y ago
"We're just going to put the tip in...."
MVf4l 8y ago
Great, another piece of "Don't be evil" with a new coat, and they can ditch it whenever they feel powerful enough to ignore society's feedback. Such statement absolutely relieves the pressure came from the public, hence law makers. Can we make sure big companies are legally accountable for what they claim to the public? Otherwise they can say just whatever persuades people to be less vigilant about what they are doing, which is so deceptive and irresponsible.
htor 8y ago
google has no moral or principles. how could it possibly have those things? how can a global advertisement corp. not be evil? it doesn't make any sense!
MVf4l 8y ago
Off topic, is there a way to tag all the stakeholders of the main company/government mentioned in title/article?
TremendousJudge 8y ago
>At its heart, AI is computer programming that learns and adapts No, that's machine learning. AI is intelligence demonstrated by machines, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it learns or adapts.
coreypreston 8y ago
Its interesting the sections discussing 'privacy' and 'accountability to people' contain the least amount of information.
jacobsenscott 8y ago
"Our AI is so powerful it needs special rules!" is pure marketing.
ehudla 8y ago
What do you think about the following potential additions? 1. "Pursue legislation and regulation to promote these principles across the industry." 2. "Develop or support the development of AI based tools to help combat, alleviate, the dangers noted in the other principles in products developed by other companies and governments."
forapurpose 8y ago
At least they are starting the conversation. I'd be much more comfortable with principles of design and implementation in addition to outcomes. For example, transparency is essential. Also: 5. Incorporate privacy design principles. We will incorporate our privacy principles in the development and use of our AI technologies. We will give opportunity for notice and consent, encourage architectures with privacy safeguards, and provide appropriate transparency and control over the use of data. Why not "give people control over their privacy and over their information"? That's a commitment to an outcome. "Incorporate ... principles", "give opportunity", "encourage", and "appropriate transparency and control" are not commitments. Google seems to be hedging on privacy.
- mylons 8y ago
  they're only starting it because of the backlash from employees internally and more importantly the external backlash.
jamesblonde 8y ago
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." Groucho Marx
metaphorical 8y ago
The same AI tech developed for "search and rescue" can be easily re-purposed for "search and destroy". How would Google prevent that from happening?
Dowwie 8y ago
This likely took careful consideration and deliberation among a number of people. Google should be commended for the effort.
binnesjohn 8y ago
Google's one and only principal is to violate your privacy with facebook and billderberg friends
djrogers 8y ago
> Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. What does that even mean? Internationally accepted? By what nations and people groups? I’m pretty sure China and Russia have different accepted norms than Norway and Canada - which ones will you adhere to?
s2g 8y ago
> Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. I guess Google's policy of sucking up any and all data doesn't go against internationally accepted norms. This entire article reads like BS if you think about what Google actually does.
mikeJoy6 8y ago
if by AI you mean collusion or racism or cartel or some other violation of either - the law of the USA - the law of international order as enumerated in Europe during the Middle Ages or some other anti-historical or illegal association that would otherwise be known as a tech trade association and have a friend who bugs members of Congress on a regular basis... I hope you get my drift. Artificial Intelligence is corporate lobbying and collusion masquerading as legitimate business. We had the trust busters, we will have the a. i. busters as well. Government will exercise common sense and cooler heads will prevail, if only because the people tire of Google's intelligent but annoying fantasies of wealth and international order and prefer the institutions of the 20th century, imperfect as they were, to the war on information that Google represents.
kerng 8y ago
This seems like a PR stunt, but at least something. Nothing prevents them and reverting those newly found principles over time... similar with removing "Don't be Evil" from their mission - which kinda would have covered that. Google's goal is to make money and that's what this is about.
hueving 8y ago
Pretty rich for them to claim privacy is important when all of this technology is based on funneling your private data straight to them for storage and processing.
cromwellian 8y ago
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.
- minikites 8y ago
  "Machine learning is like money laundering for bias" https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/744595961217835008 https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/744595961217835008
- zawerf 8y ago
  It's definitely a problem worth alleviating. But it is "triggering" because it is an open problem to determine whether a bias is harmful, even for human beings. So it becomes an impossible/unreasonable amount of extra work if you demand it as a prerequisite. For example, in your translation tool example, even a human translator would have trouble making the least offensive translation possible. She/he/(insert favorite pronoun here) would need to realize the audience is a young impressionable child who is about to base her entire world-view on whether there's statistically more of her gender in that one sentence of translation. For a machine learning algorithm to understand enough about human nature to not offend the parent of that child, you're better off waiting for AGI that can surpass human tact.
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    You don't think a black person trying to use a photo management app and having their children's photos miscategorized as gorillas is harmful? We know what biases people say offend them already, there's no evidence fixing them is harmful, but a non-zero risk that not fixing them is harmful. I feel like what I'm encountering is a conservative bias against changing the status quo, "social engineering", and the like. It seems people don't like deliberate, non-organic, changes to the status quo (well, they don't tend to like organic ones either, like succeeding generations becoming say, more sexually liberal) Machine learning can create filter bubbles, echo chambers, feedback loops, and people may attribute more weight to answers provided by machines than people, and so having machine learning reinforce even more strongly, current cultural biases that we're already seeking politically to ameliorate seems prudent and pragmatic to try and balance.
retrogradeorbit 8y ago
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.
thrusong 8y ago
Didn't Google have a motto of "Don't be evil," and then new management retired the saying? What's stopping that from happening again in this case?
- Crash0v3rid3 8y ago
  No, it's still in there code of conduct.
AtomicOrbital 8y ago
Humanity is racing ever faster to craft its own replacement as a species and we need to acknowledge this as our finest gift imaginable ... the cat is out of the bag on AI and no amount of corporate double speak can shed responsibility for any organization who employs armies who then freely spread these skills ... passing the torch to that which runs at light speed and is free of the limits of time which self evolves its own hardware and software can only be something we collectively should be proud of not afraid of ... rejoice as we molt and fly into the infinite now
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  >can only be something we collectively should be proud of not afraid of If AI is used for mass murder of the human species, should we be proud? Humility, rather than hubris, is existentially important when it comes to wielding the most extreme power humanity has ever known
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  How could something that can easily be added as a plugin replace us?
75dvtwin 8y ago
US government should consider accelerating breaking Google monopoly. So that " ….we understand there is room for many voices in this conversation. " becomes more meaningful.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
I think the avoidance of harm is fundamentally flawed. Creation necessitates destruction. At times safety necessitates assault. Violence can not be eradicated we can only strive to maximize our values. Anyone who claims to be non-violent has simply rationalized ignorance of their violence. See: vegans. (spoken as someone who eats a plant based diet)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
athoik 8y ago
Some time ago, the π day... I become aware of the following. Sadly I totally agree with the "trend" :( "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality." -- Stephen Hawking
gandutraveler 8y ago
AI can and will be used to cause harm. I hope this doesn't cause US huge disadvantage against other nations like China where govt has more control and access to AI.
sidcool 8y ago
In a way, the engineers who quit Google had some part in this success. Would it be unwise for Google to reach out to them?
jcadam 8y ago
As someone who has worked in the defense industry his entire career (and served in the Army before that), I find the general tone of most of these comments - in particular the ones coming from supposedly loyal American citizens - disturbing (not to mention insulting). Almost makes me wish we'd actually institute mandatory national service. That said, I'd love to work on ML/AI related defense projects. Thanks to Google, more of this type of work will surely be thrown over to the traditional defense contractors - so maybe I'll get that chance, eh?
KillcodeX 8y ago
Google is a front company like Amazon, facebook, Microsoft and Palantir... More Front companies in the US intelligence industry : There are at least four flavors [like subatomic particles].... 1) The non-Corporation - with only a room, desk and incorporation papers - maybe one or a few employees playing golf. Just a front and cut-out. 2) The Corporation that does favors when asked for the Company or other intelligence agencies. 3) The medium to full-size firm or Company that is dedicated to working for intelligence and what they do other is only for cover. 4) The Corporation that has some persons within working for intelligence, while others have no idea and are not. Amazon- Jeff Bezos ( Background : Grand father was program manager to Darpa, and he worked on nuclear atomic bomb.) CIA contract $600M and front of CIA cover up propaganda machine with the Washington post acquisition ($200). Amazon web services is connected to the NSA severs. He is only a front man like the guy from J.P Morgan. In short, Amazon is the US government... A.P.I. Distributors, Inc. (A Houston firm involving famous spooks Richard Secord, Thomas Clines, Ted Shackley): Johathan Kwitny, The Crimes Of Patriots Actus Technology: Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence Aero Associates (suspected, involved in illegal CIA foreign weapon sales): : Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence AID (Agency for International Development - shared facilities with NIA): Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence Air America: Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence Air Asia: Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence American Committee for Liberation (of Cuba): Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence American Committee on a United Europe: Jim Hougan, Spooks American Council of Churches (established by Howard Hunt) Facebook, lifelog Darpa project transferred to Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg(CIA cover up front of agent like Jeff bezos) and other CIA assets like Parker.facebook is the United States government... Same thing for Twitter. GOOGLE, Darpa Project, NSA contract, defense contract - Eric Schmidt (defense advisors board) and Larry /Brin used the oil of the pentagon to travel (Private Jet)
acobster 8y ago
Applications they will not pursue include those "that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms." That's some fancy gymnastics there, Mr. Pichai. Well played. I was wondering how or if they were going to address this. It saddens me to see that Google considers collecting as much data as possible about all its users to maximize ad revenue an international norm. It saddens me more to see that they're correct.
jfv 8y ago
I've been asking myself this question for over 20 years: who are these people that click on ads anyway? Ads are inherently going to be the opposite of Google's values, yet Google depends on them for the vast majority of their revenue. They show you some search results in line with their values, and if you can't get to the top of that "intrinsically", you buy ads or SEO. The folks that use that system to exploit the least intelligent win here, and Google takes a share of the profit. Based on my Google search results in the recent past, Google isn't doing a good job of making sure the "best" websites (by my own value system, of course) make it to the top. I find myself having to go into second and third page results to get legitimate information. I'm seeing pages of medical quackery that "sounds good" but isn't based on science when I try to find diet or exercise advice. As technology becomes more democratic, more people will use it. That means that the people that spend more time trying to sell you shit are going to win, because they're the ones that are willing to reverse-engineer the algorithm and push stuff up to the top. They add less value to society because they're spending all their time on marketing and promotion. I wish I knew how to solve this problem. By imposing morals, Google "bites the hand that feeds".
billybolton 8y ago
Luckily no one needs to worry about Google ever creating advancements AI (they can't, they lack the required skillset). Google is the modern day IBM, and AlphaGo is just another DeepBlue. I wonder when Google will make a gimmick like Watson. I guess Duplex is the beginning of it. It's amazing to see how many people were impressed by that. Then again, the tech scene lacks the scientific rigour that is required for spotting breakthroughs.
ravenscrow 8y ago
Don't be evil : Part Deux? Don't be evil 2.0? Don't be evil : Reimagined? Don't be evil : The Reboot? Don't be evil : The Prequel? I should work at Google's marketing department. I've a lot of ideas.
current_call 8y ago
AI applications we will not pursue Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. They already failed.
mrslave 8y ago
Don't be Skynet?

644 points by dannyrosen 8y ago

ISL 8y ago

The best way to lead is by example. Thank you, Googlers. The choice not to accept business is a hard one. I've recently turned away from precision-metrology work where I couldn't be certain of its intent; in every other way, it was precisely the sort of work I'd like to do, and the compensation was likely to be good. These stated principles are very much in line with those that I've chosen; a technology's primary purpose and intent must be for non-offensive and non-surveillance purposes. We should have a lot of respect for a company's clear declaration of work which it will not do.

MarkMMullin 8y ago
That's a pity - as someone in stereo machine vision, metrology is something we really really need for a huge range of applications - that said, if its feeding an autonomous armed targeting system, I agree. We really need to decide as a species we want to continue being a species and realize that solving problems with each other by force is coming to an end. I'm not speaking from a pacifist viewpoint, just a practical one - there's pretty much no way we're not going to continue evolving vision systems in all their hyperspectral glory, and they can do a lot of good - we just cannot arm them. Ever. And surveillance is a complex question - there are enough positives it can offer not to rule it out a priori
- ISL 8y ago
  Agreed regarding surveillance. In my book, working on Landsat, JWST, or LISA = awesome. I will only direct expertise toward an imaging system like Keyhole or targeting/guidance systems if our society faces a clear and acute foreign threat.
  - MarkMMullin 8y ago
    What about street level city/town surveillance? Of course all the cop shops want to feed all their wants/warrants into it. I have no problem with this if there is a legal framework that supports it. More importantly, there are toddlers that get loose from their mothers because they are fundamentally greased pigs, or there are older members of our society who may be prone to wandering off in a daze - the ability to locate them within a very few minutes would be a good thing indeed. My own take is that I will look, I will try and recognize, but I will NEVER target. Machine is too good, sacks of meat like us have no prayer. That said, I've talked to a couple of cop shops, my position is that I will work with them when there is a framework that defines a legal basis for that level of tracking of people who clearly wish not to be tracked, even if they are bad actors. It's not a question of how far away you are, its a question of what you will track, why you will track, and what structure our society has put in place to get the benefits, not the risks. Looping back to the main point of the post, looking is OK, tracking requires societal governance, and any autonomous lethal capability, never mind action, should be absolutely forbidden, not just by law, but because we don't all want to die.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Russia reportedly has armed robots capable of operating autonomously and they preemptively refused to honor any ban, and other nations are developing their own. As terrifying as the prospect is, it's already happening.
  - MarkMMullin 8y ago
    Yes. I can only refuse to play and hope the Russians et al come to their senses, the United Nations starts to work better, etc. If we go down that road, it will be the end of most of us, if not all of us. We really have no chance against a machine that's decided to shoot us. As a species we need to have zero tolerance for it - we won't be rendered extinct by snazzy terminators, we'll be killed by the 21st century version of a Victorian steam loom. Its truly a horrible problem, because the solution can't be creating autonomous systems to kill other autonomous systems. The rest of the distinction is just data. The only way to win is not to play.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      That’s the problem with mutually assured destruction weapons (which AI bots most surely qualify as). If you accept as a given that at least one faction is building them, then the other factions’ only choices are: 1. Build your own and pray for a Cold War stalemate and 2. Don’t build your own and guarantee you’ll be destroyed.
      - MarkMMullin 8y ago
        MAD was based on the concept of the 'Nuclear Club' - the barrier to entry was the mass defect ratio, which you'd have to calculate on your own, and then you'd confront nation-state level expenses of turning that knowledge into practical engineering. It had an inherent cap on the number of possible players. Not saying it was nice, it was just manageable. The barriers to entry here are much lower. For smaller players, lethal drone prices would be at the several hundred dollar range with a six digit investment in infrastructure, and I'd have full confidence in American defense contractors to drive that price much lower, in order to protect their margins, and at scale, they'll mess up their inventory control. The only choice is to recognize as a species this cannot be done, or it will be done. This equation is not about the few agreeing not to kill the many, it is about the many realizing that this is a road to an extinction level event. I don't mean to be dramatic, but I have a system I could make kill if I wanted to, and I paid for the whole thing on credit cards. Its too easy and too efficient. The number of players can't be counted on one hand, it's a tech lone individuals could deploy. If they do then others will, you net an exponential growth rate in deployment, and then the game is over. At the end of the day, all of the pieces are already here - a motivated individual can do a lot of damage, several motivated individuals or groups can get into a squabble and the damage rises exponentially. It is simply not an avenue we can accept. The limit to entry is not financial, it is not technical, it only can be that we must not. I'm pleased Google has defined their ethics as a company, I just argue in this case we need to define our ethics as a species. We cannot build these because if we do they will get loose, they will be used, and it will be a tragedy. We must all agree that arming autonomous machines is beyond the pale, for any one, for any reason. As soon as one is built, your destruction is guaranteed, regardless of whether you too build one. .
chellam 8y ago
Turning away will slow things down but AI for military applications will happen. Someone will fill the void.
- staticassertion 8y ago
  That doesn't make it ok to be the one to fill it.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    On a geopolitical level, it does. It's far better for the world that the United States developed atomic weapons before either Germany or the Soviets did.
    - RyanZAG 8y ago
      It's a good point, and if anybody thinks an arms race isn't already happening then they are very naive. While we're debating the morals of this, the Chinese, Russians and many others are trying to make it happen. For all we know, they may have already succeeded, and we're discussing the morals of it while it's already in full production a few thousand miles away. The relevant research papers, knowledge and skills are widely available across the world. There are some advanced courses at Chinese universities right now that can only be seen as 'AI for military'.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        And I can almost guarantee that, unlike the US, the Russian and Chinese militarized AI programs are not optimized for minimizing civilian casualties.
        marricks 8y ago
        Really? Looking at drone strike causualities you’d have no clue how much the US even tries. Its funny cause I haven’t heard of large scale Chinese or Russian drones flying over other countries targeting terrorists but ending up murdering children on more than one occasion. Perhaps these technologies can be just evil and the US is the only country powerful enough to get away with using them. I really have no stomach for just a vapid excuse, and I cannot fathom how so many people fall for it.
Terretta 8y ago
> ”non-surveillance purposes” Not what it says. It says: “...surveillance violating internationally accepted norms.” Thanks to leaks, we have a glimpse of the new normal.

godelmachine 8y ago

I was kind of reminded of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics while going through the Principles, especially the 7th one.

notfed 8y ago
3. Be built and tested for safety. 4. Be accountable to people. 6. Uphold high standards of scientific excellence.

capitalisthakr 8y ago

Reminded me of their first principle, and how well they did with that one: "Don't be evil"

beaner 8y ago
Pretty well, all things considered.
- zanedb 8y ago
  Elaborate?
  - snorrah 8y ago
    Well I’m guessing everyone will have a slightly different viewpoint, but my use of google services over the last 15? years has not had me feeling they’ve done anything evil to me. Yes I’m sure they have a huge swell of data about me, but so far the use of that data has not caused me any suffering, or pain, or misfortune etc. “Don’t be evil” is quite a poignant statement. If they were to say, “don’t do bad things” then I wouldn’t have quite the defence. But no, for at least me, a sample size of one, they have not been evil.
- mtgx 8y ago
  3 antitrust cases in the EU (Shopping, Android, and Adsense), and a couple of FTC antitrust cases im the US (one of which Eric Schmidt lobbied away through Obama) say otherwise. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/18/google_had_obamas_ear_on_antitrust_probe/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/18/google_had_obamas_e... If that's supposed to be "our best", we're in trouble.
  - randcraw 8y ago
    Antitrust isn't about committing a crime so much as competing so well that the the company sucks the oxygen from the room. Becoming a monopoly isn't evil. It's an excess of success. It's the responsibility of government antitrust law, not Google, to 'un-distort' the playing field and resurrect competition / opportunity. No one expects a corporation to voluntarily give away marketshare to ensure it doesn't run afoul of antitrust law, just because the company also vowed not to be evil. A negotiated settlement with regulators is exactly where this kind of matter should lead; no crime done.

juliend2 8y ago

> Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. > We want to be clear that while we are not developing AI for use in weapons, we will continue our work with governments and the military in many other areas. These include cybersecurity, training, military recruitment, veterans’ healthcare, and search and rescue. I wonder if this is an official response to the people at Google[1] who were protesting[2] against Project Maven. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-... [2] https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.pdf https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter....

glitchc 8y ago
I concur. This post seems to be specifically targeting the negative perception the resignations were generating.
- ryanobjc 8y ago
  Is there any room in your cynicism for any other view? For example, maybe Google leadership did hear the complaints, then realized what was happening and what could happen, and decided that something needed to be done to create and uphold values. I don't approve of defensive cynicism, I don't believe it makes a better world. In fact, I think that defensive cynicism is the reason why the world sucks. Let me guess, you don't vote because "all politicians are liars"? How's that working out for you?
  - yarrel 8y ago
    > For example, maybe Google leadership did hear the complaints, then realized what was happening and what could happen, and decided that something needed to be done to create and uphold values. I don't find the idea of Google's leadership being as out of touch and out of control as that would require to be more comforting than the idea that they are responsive to bad PR. > Let me guess, you don't vote because "all politicians are liars"? How's that working out for you? Let me guess, you vote for the candidate with the worst track record to prove that you aren't cynical about them. How's that working out for you and Mr. Trump?

Isamu 8y ago

> AI applications we will not pursue [...] Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. [...] Weapons or other technologies This statement will have zero impact on subsequent sensational headlines or posters here claiming Google is making killbots.

ironjunkie 8y ago
Well, now you are talking about philosophical questions. - Is pursuing an AI that kills 10 bad guys but saves 20 good ones overall bad? - Is pursuing an AI that doesn't kill anyone but pushes us to watch ads and lose our life on youtube overall bad?
- fredley 8y ago
  Can you really build an AI that can identify bad guys? What if it's a good guy in the wrong uniform?
  - alehul 8y ago
    I think the argument is more so that the military killing 'bad guys' will protect 'good guys' in America long-term, if not civilians local to the country in question. Not commenting on whether that's accurate; just trying to better articulate what I believe is the above poster's philosophical argument.
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    Then we can just do it Russian style. Kill everyone.
- GenerocUsername 8y ago
  - Yes : Directly responsible for death. AI is likely not the only means to have stopped those 'bad-guys'. - Depends : How humans choose to spend their lives is their own issue. Personal responsibility dictates it is each individuals choice how to live their lives. Youtube is not some resource needed for life.
- 8y ago

gaius 8y ago

The fact that “make money” isn’t on the list means that you can’t believe any of it. Also point 5 is an outright, blatant falsehood given Google’s track record and indeed entire business model.

kolbe 8y ago
This is clearly the only reasonable response to these 'principles'. Google must have a strong employee presence here.

Mononokay 8y ago

"Principles"

sctb 8y ago
You've been posting a lot of unsubstantive comments. Could you please try to increase the amount of information? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Mononokay 8y ago
  Sure thing; going into the future I'll make sure to; and sorry for breaking guidelines a bit. I was thinking I should probably take a break from HN until the current news cycle's run its course (way too many things happening that I'm tempted to reply with one-liners to; works on Twitter, doesn't work here), and should have went with my intuition + will now.

DrNuke 8y ago

I do not know, really... if not them, someone else will do however. Google has a competitive advantage (they can hire & pay well the smartest minds on Earth) and is letting it go? EDIT: going to be even more controversial but needs to be said that Google just can’t stay neutral here imho, they either work for autonomus killing machines or against them in order to preserve their market position and brand

fatjokes 8y ago
I think Google's point isn't that it can't be done, or even that it shouldn't be done, but rather simply they won't do it.
- DrNuke 8y ago
  Ok but what if it does not make sense from a business perspective in the mid or long term?
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    That begs the question.
  - John_KZ 8y ago
    If Google renews defense contracts, I'm going to simply pull the plug, and I suspect many more will follow. Changing your email address is hard, but the bulk of the task will be over in a few hours. If financial sense is the only reason, then still yes. Why? Google works for the military, gets a bad rep, usage plummets. It's not unheard of before. Of course they might renew the contracts secretly (and I'm afraid they might) but secret work is more expensive and hard to keep secret for long at large scales. Also, looking at the very long term: Making killbots creates instability which creates war which damages the purchase power of their users which creates less profits for the shareholders.
throwaway2048 8y ago
If I don't build these gas chambers, somebody else will, so i might as well pocket the money. You don't see a problem with that position?

ruseOps 8y ago

“Hey Google, give me three concrete examples of fair bias.”

inlined 8y ago
Maybe people who had certain training or education will perform better for a particular job function. There might be biases affecting who gets into a school, but from a set of Stanford grads maybe certain courses, professors, or a cohort could be learned to be ideal candidates. [Note: I work at Google but have no insight into AI projects]
sowbug 8y ago
Spam detection. Driving directions. OCR.
tlb 8y ago
Bias has a very broad meaning in AI work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff Most AI/ML/Statistics procedures use Occam's razor: prefer the simplest explanation of the data. That's a bias (toward simpler explanations), but not "unfair" to anyone.
- finnthehuman 8y ago
  Oh, so they mean the boring technical definition that nobody reading the page cares about? We can trust google will try to build tools that are effective for googles buisness goals without it being proclaimed in a statement of principles.

ruseOps 8y ago

“Hey Google, give me three concrete examples of ‘fair bias’.”

finnthehuman 8y ago

>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.

eclectic 8y ago
Their bias is fair, you see.
foobaw 8y ago
They circumvent this by using the word "avoid." Avoiding and not doing are two different things.
- gimmefreedom 8y ago
  avoid |əˈvoid| verb keep away from or stop oneself from doing (something) Instead, I think Google just doesn't mind lying[1]. 1. e.g., "Don't be evil"
- randcraw 8y ago
  I don't know how you do something and avoid doing something at the same time.
  - kchr 8y ago
    Personally, I think the term "avoid" is more of an ideal/pragmatic stance ("would be ideal not to") than the binary "will do"/" will not do"
ergothus 8y ago
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 same news blurb is even more dramatic than I'd expect when you put them up side-by-side. None of which contradicts your point, I just wanted to flag a happy instance where the result wasn't just "yo dawg".

foobaw 8y ago

I wished they could define and clarify what "harm" means.

paulgpetty 8y ago

So was the “Don’t be evil” principle or mantra that we’re all disappointed about documented in a blog post? For some reason I thought it was on a page like this: https://www.google.com/about/our-commitments/ https://www.google.com/about/our-commitments/ Either way it’s just a statement on a webpage which has all the permanence of a sign in their HQ lobby. It’s going to be hard to convince people that statements like this from a Google, a Facebook, or an Uber really mean anything — especially long term. Will their next leadership team or CEO carry on with this?

ucaetano 8y ago
Don't be evil is on the Code of Conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

hooande 8y ago

The military is using open source software to sort images, with consulting help from Google. No killbots, no acts of war, just doing the only thing that machine learning has any practical use for. Science fiction writing is hard. I don't know why all of you are doing it for no pay. We can't judge Google for what we think they might do. And so far, they're just using ml in the real world

whazor 8y ago

But how? Let's assume I personally offer artificial intelligence services. So I provide some API's where my customers upload training and testing data, and I return a trained ML model. I do not know who uses my service or what they are doing... Furthermore, if ban the military. Then another company could do it for them. So every customer would have to explain their activities?

j2kun 8y ago
FTA: > As we develop and deploy AI technologies, we will evaluate likely uses in light of the following factors: [...] Nature and uniqueness: whether we are making available technology that is unique or more generally available Presumably this means they would allow the US military to use their cloud services like any other customer. This is almost certain not to happen because of the classified nature of their data. Also, this is meant to guide how Google decides what to develop, not (AFAICT) meant as a terms of service for customers. Though I bet Google still reserves the right to block accounts it decides are using its platform in a way they think is immoral. Disclaimer: I work for Google.
kevinmchugh 8y ago
Banks are required to do this for at least money-laundering purposes. It's called Know Your Customer.

bobcostas55 8y ago

>Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. I recommend _The impossibility of “fairness”: a generalized impossibility result for decisions_[0] and _Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores_[1] [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf

tlb 8y ago
It's true that you can't ever be perfectly fair, for every reasonable definition of fair. However, you can easily mess up and be very unfair. So even though there is no "perfect", there is still a continuum of bad to good.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  Your definition of "fair" is some other groups definition of "unfair". And I'm not even talking about pro- anti- nazis, I'm talking about more mundane leanings.
ramblerman 8y ago
Not sure why you are being downvoted. This is a reasonable sentiment. It's similar to people who want to lose their accent when learning a language. It's something that is impossible to do, you can't not speak with an accent. The way to lose your accent is to pick a new one, and begin emulating it.
kanox 8y ago
> Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. This very high up and is written in a way which would explicitly allow "fair bias". This means activists will have a free hand to use their positions at Google to enforce their vision of political orthodoxy.
- skybrian 8y ago
  A search engine with no biases whatsoever is useless. The whole point is to be biased towards articles that users find more useful, not to give a random sample of the Internet (whatever that means). I'm sure there will be internal debate over what biases are good ones to keep and nobody gets a free hand. But as a policy, it doesn't restrict Google's options very much.

reilly3000 8y ago

New hot job title: AI ombudsman.

criddell 8y ago
This is Google you are talking about. It's more like hot new script: ai_ombudsman.py

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

>4. Be accountable to people. >We will design AI systems that provide appropriate opportunities for feedback, relevant explanations, and appeal. Our AI technologies will be subject to appropriate human direction and control. Youtube moderation and automated account banning combined with the inability to actually get in contact with a human show they they have a long way to go with this principle.

MarkMMullin 8y ago
That is going to be a tough one, and possibly even impossible based on where current ML tech is leading. A laudable goal, but taking a complex system with a training time of many GPU years and asking it how it came up with the answer basically nets a very large pile of numbers (weights) tied together in a complex multidimensional relationship that we just plain can't follow outside of the system. Right now the practical focus is on trying to stop feeding the systems biased data. Your example is spot on, save for the 'not able to talk to someone' which is just googz being too aloof and too cheap

amaccuish 8y ago

Also on this topic, from students who would interview at Google. It's important to hear how the upcoming generation, who would actually be doing this work, feel https://gizmodo.com/students-pledge-to-refuse-job-interviews-at-google-in-p-1826614260 https://gizmodo.com/students-pledge-to-refuse-job-interviews... [Students Pledge to Refuse Job Interviews at Google in Protest of Pentagon Work]

edhu2017 8y ago
From my observations in my college, Google is starting to become the new "Microsoft". It is still seen as well paying, and nerdy but it is no longer new and exciting. Facebook is taking over Google's spot as the well established but still exciting tech company, while Airbnb seems to be taking FB's spot as the new and exciting tech company.
- davesque 8y ago
  I have rather the opposite impression of Facebook. They seem sort of tired and are moving onto the same level as Uber in terms of ethical conduct.
  - londons_explore 8y ago
    Facebooks business seems to be suffering in various dimensions... The key figure, minutes of time spent on the site in total, is being warped to include Instagram and Whatsapp, trying to hide the fact that Facebook itself is dying.

EpicEng 8y ago

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 was no discussion about the morality of the matter (I'm not taking any moral stance here just to be clear.) Once this became an internal and external PR issue, Google held a series of all hands meetings and claimed that this was a "small project" and that the AI would not be used to kill people. While technically true, those same internal emails show that Google expected this to become a much larger project over time, eventually bringing in about $250M / year[1]. So even then they were being a bit disingenuous by focusing only on the current scope of the deal. And here we are now with a release from the CEO talking about morality and "principles" well after the fact. I doubt many people do anyway, but I'm not buying the "these are our morals" bit. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/06/01/report-google-thought-military-drone-project-would.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/06/01/report-g...

throwaway2048 8y ago
There was a similar "comming to jesus moment" with Google in China. They saw how they had to do the right thing after years of censoring and manipulating data for the chinese government, but only after they got massively hacked, blocked, and essentially forced out of china... However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  > However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing. Agreed, and I try not to be too hard on them. I don't think it's a black and white issue personally, the only issue I have is how this implies Google always wants to do the right thing from the get go, which very much seems to not be the case here.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago

fortythirteen 8y ago

> We want to be clear that while we are not developing AI for use in weapons... we will be developing AI for things that have weapons attached to them. We hope our lawyerly semantics are enough to fool you rubes for as long as it takes us to pocket that sweet military money.

Barrin92 8y ago
reminds me of the joke >"It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a NukeChicago procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a NukeCity procedure, to which Chicago could be given as a parameter."

foolinaround 8y ago

> Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. AI will likely reflect the bias of its training set, which likely reflects the bias of the creators. So, it is fair to say that AI will be biased?

cpeterso 8y ago
There is definitely a risk of machines learning to reinforce existing but undesirable bias in real-world training data. There is research into documenting forms of bias so they can be recognized and countered when selecting training data. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-risk-of-machine-learning-bias-and-how-to-prevent-it/ https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-risk-of-machine-lear... https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/279927 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/279927

bovermyer 8y ago

Just follow the three laws of robotics and you'll be fine.

davesque 8y ago

It's good that they're openly acknowledging the misstep here. However, I wish that the "will not pursue" section got the same bold-faced treatment as the one above it. It seems appropriate at this point for industry leaders in this field, and governments, to come together with a set of Geneva-convention-like rules which address the ethical risks inherent in this space.

benatkin 8y ago
It certainly leaves the door open. Reminds me of that saying that no ethically trained software engineer would write a DestroyBaghdad procedure, but would write a DestroyCity procedure to chick Baghdad could be passed as a parameter.

skapadia 8y ago

Under "AI applications we will not pursue", its telling that the first rule basically allows them to override all the subsequent ones - "where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks". "We believe" gives them a lot of leeway.

londons_explore 8y ago
"We believe that AI powered nukes will lead to world peace when nobody dares go up against them, therefore we're going ahead with the project."

confounded 8y ago

This is pretty weak tea. It seems to completely justify working on anything, as long as the tiny part that Google engineers touch is software, and they aren't personally pulling triggers. > 1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints. Is this "We have solved the trolley problem"? Benefits to who? US Consumers? Shareholders? Someone in Afghanistan with the wrong IMEI who's making a phone-call? Without specifying this, this statement completely fails as a restraint on behavior. For an extrajudicial assassination via drone, is 'the technology' the re-purposed consumer software to aid target selection, or the bomb? Presumably the latter in every case. > 2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. This leaves the vast majority of military applications in scope. By this definition, Project Maven (the cause of resignations/protests) meets the criteria of not "directly facilitat[ing] injury to people". It selects who and what to cause injury too at lower cost and accuracy, to scale up the total number of causable injuries per dollar. > 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. Google set the norms for surveillance by being at the leading edge of it. It's pretty clear from Google's positioning that they consider data stored with them for monetization and distribution to Goverments completely fine. Governments do, too. And of course, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."[0]. > 4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights. It's difficult to see how this could be anything but a circular argument that whatever the US military thinks is appropriate, is accepted as appropriate, because the US military thinks it is. The most widely accepted definitions of human rights are the UN's, and the least controversial of those is the Right to Life. There are legal limits to this right, but by definition, extrajudicial assassinations via drone strike are in contravention of it. Even if they're Googley extrajudicial assassinations. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid...

jadedhacker 8y ago
Was going to say much the same thing, thank you. You said it much better.

kolbe 8y ago

Trust is like a mirror: you can fix it if it's broken, but you'll always see the crack in that motherfucker's reflection.

locacorten 8y ago

> We believe that AI should: > > 1. Be socially beneficial. > 2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. > 3. Be built and tested for safety. > 4. Be accountable to people. > 5. Incorporate privacy design principles. > 6. Uphold high standards of scientific excellence. > 7. Be made available for uses that accord with these principles. While I like this list a lot, I don't understand why this is AI-specific, and not software-specific. Is Google using the word "AI" to mean "software"?

sidcool 8y ago
Great point. AI is not the only way to reinforce biases.

exabrial 8y ago

Google: We take Pentagon contracts to track people's location with our AI. That's so bad. Also Google: We will totally use our AI to 'legally' track a single mom that clicked a fine print EULA once while signing into our app. That's totally fine. It's different mmk?

exabrial 8y ago
Oh and if you want Google Maps to retain your search history, you have to turn on Global Search History across all Google products. It's impossible to keep a local file on your phone that would have the history in it just for that app. Totally impossible. That data needs to be sent to us.
- exabrial 8y ago
  Which we forgot to mention when you turn that on we begin recording your location history.
CydeWeys 8y ago
This comment comes off as intentionally disingenuous to me. In the latter case, it's about serving up ads. In the former case, it's literally about assassinating people from the sky. They really are different.
- exabrial 8y ago
  Both can be used for malicious prosecution.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

The principles state that they will not make weapons. However the latest report I’ve seen states that their current contract for the military ends some time in 2019. [1] So while google says it will not make weapons, it seems that for the next 6-18 months it will continue to do so. Does anyone know when in 2019 the contact expires? It seems odd to come out with a pledge not to make weapons while continuing to make weapons (assuming that is what they are doing). (Full disclosure, I am a contractor at an Alphabet company, but I don’t know much about project Maven. These are my own opinions.) [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/1/17418406/google-maven-drone-imagery-ai-contract-expire https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/1/17418406/google-maven-dron...

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I believe it continues through March 2019.

sethbannon 8y ago

Love this leadership from Jeff Dean and the team at Google AI. Technology can be an incredible lever for positive change, but can just as easily be a destructive force. Always import to think principally about how to ensure the former is the case and not the latter.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

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 research and pretend it is not happening but to make sure it ends up in the right hands and is done on the right terms. Google, being at the forefront of research here, has a heavy responsibility to both do well and good. I don't believe Google declining to weaponize AI, which lets face it is what all this posturing is about, would be helpful at all. It would just lead to somebody else doing the same, or worse. There's some advantage to being involved: you can set terms, drive opinions, influence legislation, and dictate roadmaps. The flip side is of course that with great power comes great responsibility. I grew up in a world where 1984 was science fiction and then became science fact. I worry about ubiquitous surveillance, un-escapable AI driven life time camera surveillance, and worse. George Orwell was a naive fool compared to what current technology enables right now. That doesn't mean we should shy away from doing the research. Instead make sure that those cameras are also pointed at those most likely to abuse their privileges. That's the only way to keep the system in check. The next best thing to preventing this from happening is rapidly commodotizing the technology so that we can all keep tabs on each other. So, Google: do the research and continue to open source your results.

imbokodo 8y ago
This was basically the same argument the Zentrumspartei made for voting for the Enabling Act in 1933.
- Gorgor 8y ago
  What was their argument? Do you have a link?
75dvtwin 8y ago
@jillesvangurp. I am arguing in my post above, that there is a solution. Solution is in 'fragmentation of power'. Yes it has its costs, but it is just a much better model. Be it economic fragmentation of power (via de-monopolization), or political (via explicitly enumerating federal powers, and then splitting the rest for states to manage), or moral authority power (by ensuring multi-cultural, multi-view, no-moral-police environment). Google cannot remain the monopoly it is. And US gov has to accelerate its breakout.

qbaqbaqba 8y ago

1) money, 2) profit, 3) revenue.

dhimes 8y ago

"We're just going to put the tip in...."

MVf4l 8y ago

Great, another piece of "Don't be evil" with a new coat, and they can ditch it whenever they feel powerful enough to ignore society's feedback. Such statement absolutely relieves the pressure came from the public, hence law makers. Can we make sure big companies are legally accountable for what they claim to the public? Otherwise they can say just whatever persuades people to be less vigilant about what they are doing, which is so deceptive and irresponsible.

htor 8y ago

google has no moral or principles. how could it possibly have those things? how can a global advertisement corp. not be evil? it doesn't make any sense!

MVf4l 8y ago

Off topic, is there a way to tag all the stakeholders of the main company/government mentioned in title/article?

TremendousJudge 8y ago

>At its heart, AI is computer programming that learns and adapts No, that's machine learning. AI is intelligence demonstrated by machines, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it learns or adapts.

coreypreston 8y ago

Its interesting the sections discussing 'privacy' and 'accountability to people' contain the least amount of information.

jacobsenscott 8y ago

"Our AI is so powerful it needs special rules!" is pure marketing.

ehudla 8y ago

What do you think about the following potential additions? 1. "Pursue legislation and regulation to promote these principles across the industry." 2. "Develop or support the development of AI based tools to help combat, alleviate, the dangers noted in the other principles in products developed by other companies and governments."

forapurpose 8y ago

At least they are starting the conversation. I'd be much more comfortable with principles of design and implementation in addition to outcomes. For example, transparency is essential. Also: 5. Incorporate privacy design principles. We will incorporate our privacy principles in the development and use of our AI technologies. We will give opportunity for notice and consent, encourage architectures with privacy safeguards, and provide appropriate transparency and control over the use of data. Why not "give people control over their privacy and over their information"? That's a commitment to an outcome. "Incorporate ... principles", "give opportunity", "encourage", and "appropriate transparency and control" are not commitments. Google seems to be hedging on privacy.

mylons 8y ago
they're only starting it because of the backlash from employees internally and more importantly the external backlash.

jamesblonde 8y ago

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." Groucho Marx

metaphorical 8y ago

The same AI tech developed for "search and rescue" can be easily re-purposed for "search and destroy". How would Google prevent that from happening?

Dowwie 8y ago

This likely took careful consideration and deliberation among a number of people. Google should be commended for the effort.

binnesjohn 8y ago

Google's one and only principal is to violate your privacy with facebook and billderberg friends

djrogers 8y ago

> Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. What does that even mean? Internationally accepted? By what nations and people groups? I’m pretty sure China and Russia have different accepted norms than Norway and Canada - which ones will you adhere to?

s2g 8y ago

> Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. I guess Google's policy of sucking up any and all data doesn't go against internationally accepted norms. This entire article reads like BS if you think about what Google actually does.

mikeJoy6 8y ago

if by AI you mean collusion or racism or cartel or some other violation of either - the law of the USA - the law of international order as enumerated in Europe during the Middle Ages or some other anti-historical or illegal association that would otherwise be known as a tech trade association and have a friend who bugs members of Congress on a regular basis... I hope you get my drift. Artificial Intelligence is corporate lobbying and collusion masquerading as legitimate business. We had the trust busters, we will have the a. i. busters as well. Government will exercise common sense and cooler heads will prevail, if only because the people tire of Google's intelligent but annoying fantasies of wealth and international order and prefer the institutions of the 20th century, imperfect as they were, to the war on information that Google represents.

kerng 8y ago

This seems like a PR stunt, but at least something. Nothing prevents them and reverting those newly found principles over time... similar with removing "Don't be Evil" from their mission - which kinda would have covered that. Google's goal is to make money and that's what this is about.

hueving 8y ago

Pretty rich for them to claim privacy is important when all of this technology is based on funneling your private data straight to them for storage and processing.

cromwellian 8y ago

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.

minikites 8y ago
"Machine learning is like money laundering for bias" https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/744595961217835008 https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/744595961217835008
zawerf 8y ago
It's definitely a problem worth alleviating. But it is "triggering" because it is an open problem to determine whether a bias is harmful, even for human beings. So it becomes an impossible/unreasonable amount of extra work if you demand it as a prerequisite. For example, in your translation tool example, even a human translator would have trouble making the least offensive translation possible. She/he/(insert favorite pronoun here) would need to realize the audience is a young impressionable child who is about to base her entire world-view on whether there's statistically more of her gender in that one sentence of translation. For a machine learning algorithm to understand enough about human nature to not offend the parent of that child, you're better off waiting for AGI that can surpass human tact.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  You don't think a black person trying to use a photo management app and having their children's photos miscategorized as gorillas is harmful? We know what biases people say offend them already, there's no evidence fixing them is harmful, but a non-zero risk that not fixing them is harmful. I feel like what I'm encountering is a conservative bias against changing the status quo, "social engineering", and the like. It seems people don't like deliberate, non-organic, changes to the status quo (well, they don't tend to like organic ones either, like succeeding generations becoming say, more sexually liberal) Machine learning can create filter bubbles, echo chambers, feedback loops, and people may attribute more weight to answers provided by machines than people, and so having machine learning reinforce even more strongly, current cultural biases that we're already seeking politically to ameliorate seems prudent and pragmatic to try and balance.

retrogradeorbit 8y ago

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.

thrusong 8y ago

Didn't Google have a motto of "Don't be evil," and then new management retired the saying? What's stopping that from happening again in this case?

Crash0v3rid3 8y ago
No, it's still in there code of conduct.

AtomicOrbital 8y ago

Humanity is racing ever faster to craft its own replacement as a species and we need to acknowledge this as our finest gift imaginable ... the cat is out of the bag on AI and no amount of corporate double speak can shed responsibility for any organization who employs armies who then freely spread these skills ... passing the torch to that which runs at light speed and is free of the limits of time which self evolves its own hardware and software can only be something we collectively should be proud of not afraid of ... rejoice as we molt and fly into the infinite now

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
>can only be something we collectively should be proud of not afraid of If AI is used for mass murder of the human species, should we be proud? Humility, rather than hubris, is existentially important when it comes to wielding the most extreme power humanity has ever known
erikpukinskis 8y ago
How could something that can easily be added as a plugin replace us?

75dvtwin 8y ago

US government should consider accelerating breaking Google monopoly. So that " ….we understand there is room for many voices in this conversation. " becomes more meaningful.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

I think the avoidance of harm is fundamentally flawed. Creation necessitates destruction. At times safety necessitates assault. Violence can not be eradicated we can only strive to maximize our values. Anyone who claims to be non-violent has simply rationalized ignorance of their violence. See: vegans. (spoken as someone who eats a plant based diet)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

athoik 8y ago

Some time ago, the π day... I become aware of the following. Sadly I totally agree with the "trend" :( "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality." -- Stephen Hawking

gandutraveler 8y ago

AI can and will be used to cause harm. I hope this doesn't cause US huge disadvantage against other nations like China where govt has more control and access to AI.

sidcool 8y ago

In a way, the engineers who quit Google had some part in this success. Would it be unwise for Google to reach out to them?

jcadam 8y ago

As someone who has worked in the defense industry his entire career (and served in the Army before that), I find the general tone of most of these comments - in particular the ones coming from supposedly loyal American citizens - disturbing (not to mention insulting). Almost makes me wish we'd actually institute mandatory national service. That said, I'd love to work on ML/AI related defense projects. Thanks to Google, more of this type of work will surely be thrown over to the traditional defense contractors - so maybe I'll get that chance, eh?

KillcodeX 8y ago

Google is a front company like Amazon, facebook, Microsoft and Palantir... More Front companies in the US intelligence industry : There are at least four flavors [like subatomic particles].... 1) The non-Corporation - with only a room, desk and incorporation papers - maybe one or a few employees playing golf. Just a front and cut-out. 2) The Corporation that does favors when asked for the Company or other intelligence agencies. 3) The medium to full-size firm or Company that is dedicated to working for intelligence and what they do other is only for cover. 4) The Corporation that has some persons within working for intelligence, while others have no idea and are not. Amazon- Jeff Bezos ( Background : Grand father was program manager to Darpa, and he worked on nuclear atomic bomb.) CIA contract $600M and front of CIA cover up propaganda machine with the Washington post acquisition ($200). Amazon web services is connected to the NSA severs. He is only a front man like the guy from J.P Morgan. In short, Amazon is the US government... A.P.I. Distributors, Inc. (A Houston firm involving famous spooks Richard Secord, Thomas Clines, Ted Shackley): Johathan Kwitny, The Crimes Of Patriots Actus Technology: Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence Aero Associates (suspected, involved in illegal CIA foreign weapon sales): : Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence AID (Agency for International Development - shared facilities with NIA): Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence Air America: Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence Air Asia: Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence American Committee for Liberation (of Cuba): Victor Marchetti/John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence American Committee on a United Europe: Jim Hougan, Spooks American Council of Churches (established by Howard Hunt) Facebook, lifelog Darpa project transferred to Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg(CIA cover up front of agent like Jeff bezos) and other CIA assets like Parker.facebook is the United States government... Same thing for Twitter. GOOGLE, Darpa Project, NSA contract, defense contract - Eric Schmidt (defense advisors board) and Larry /Brin used the oil of the pentagon to travel (Private Jet)

acobster 8y ago

Applications they will not pursue include those "that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms." That's some fancy gymnastics there, Mr. Pichai. Well played. I was wondering how or if they were going to address this. It saddens me to see that Google considers collecting as much data as possible about all its users to maximize ad revenue an international norm. It saddens me more to see that they're correct.

jfv 8y ago

I've been asking myself this question for over 20 years: who are these people that click on ads anyway? Ads are inherently going to be the opposite of Google's values, yet Google depends on them for the vast majority of their revenue. They show you some search results in line with their values, and if you can't get to the top of that "intrinsically", you buy ads or SEO. The folks that use that system to exploit the least intelligent win here, and Google takes a share of the profit. Based on my Google search results in the recent past, Google isn't doing a good job of making sure the "best" websites (by my own value system, of course) make it to the top. I find myself having to go into second and third page results to get legitimate information. I'm seeing pages of medical quackery that "sounds good" but isn't based on science when I try to find diet or exercise advice. As technology becomes more democratic, more people will use it. That means that the people that spend more time trying to sell you shit are going to win, because they're the ones that are willing to reverse-engineer the algorithm and push stuff up to the top. They add less value to society because they're spending all their time on marketing and promotion. I wish I knew how to solve this problem. By imposing morals, Google "bites the hand that feeds".

billybolton 8y ago

Luckily no one needs to worry about Google ever creating advancements AI (they can't, they lack the required skillset). Google is the modern day IBM, and AlphaGo is just another DeepBlue. I wonder when Google will make a gimmick like Watson. I guess Duplex is the beginning of it. It's amazing to see how many people were impressed by that. Then again, the tech scene lacks the scientific rigour that is required for spotting breakthroughs.

ravenscrow 8y ago

Don't be evil : Part Deux? Don't be evil 2.0? Don't be evil : Reimagined? Don't be evil : The Reboot? Don't be evil : The Prequel? I should work at Google's marketing department. I've a lot of ideas.

current_call 8y ago

AI applications we will not pursue Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. They already failed.

mrslave 8y ago

Don't be Skynet?