6 ms·

Calling a search engine AI seems a little strange. >violates international norms The international norm (Microsoft, Apple, every other big company) is to obey

by Buge 8y ago

Calling a search engine AI seems a little strange. >violates international norms The international norm (Microsoft, Apple, every other big company) is to obey China's command. > Google shut out privacy and security teams from evaluating project Dragonfly. From the article it sounds like that happened in 2017, before the AI principles existed. >would make it impossible for Chinese users to use Google to find information about this very controversy It wouldn't make it impossible, it's already impossible. (Assuming you don't use a VPN.) > The (user) benefits do not substantially outweight the potential for grave harm What grave harm would be caused that doesn't already exist?

ipsa 8y ago
> Calling a search engine AI seems a little strange. It's standard in industry. Search is an AI problem. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370299000752 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437029... > The international norm (Microsoft, Apple, every other big company) is to obey China's command. No that's what companies without AI guidelines do. Violating international norms is when the US, Germany, and Japan would complain when their governments would surveil as much and as invasive as China is doing. China's surveillance apparatus is NOT the international norm! > From the article it sounds like that happened in 2017, before the AI principles existed. Yes. So Sundar Pichai introduced those guidelines, knewing full well that they were dead in the water. > It wouldn't make it impossible, it's already impossible. One of the scariest conclusions. Really pause and take it in. How significant is this? > What grave harm would be caused that doesn't already exist? This is a weird reasoning for me. It reads to me as similar to: People are going to die anyway, what grave harm would be caused by murdering them by your own hands?
fulafel 8y ago
Search is definitely one of the canonical AI applications.

by Buge 8y ago

ipsa 8y ago

> Calling a search engine AI seems a little strange. It's standard in industry. Search is an AI problem. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370299000752 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437029... > The international norm (Microsoft, Apple, every other big company) is to obey China's command. No that's what companies without AI guidelines do. Violating international norms is when the US, Germany, and Japan would complain when their governments would surveil as much and as invasive as China is doing. China's surveillance apparatus is NOT the international norm! > From the article it sounds like that happened in 2017, before the AI principles existed. Yes. So Sundar Pichai introduced those guidelines, knewing full well that they were dead in the water. > It wouldn't make it impossible, it's already impossible. One of the scariest conclusions. Really pause and take it in. How significant is this? > What grave harm would be caused that doesn't already exist? This is a weird reasoning for me. It reads to me as similar to: People are going to die anyway, what grave harm would be caused by murdering them by your own hands?

fulafel 8y ago

Search is definitely one of the canonical AI applications.