4 ms·
I'm someone who generally thinks we need much more tolerance for regulation in the States, and even I'm not buying Pichai's stance. CEOs of publicly-traded cor
by _bxg1 7y ago
I'm someone who generally thinks we need much more tolerance for regulation in the States, and even I'm not buying Pichai's stance.
CEOs of publicly-traded corporations do not act in good faith towards anyone but shareholders. We can debate whether or not they're morally obligated to (I would say yes), but realistically, they do not.
The only reason a hired CEO would push for regulation of his own industry besides wanting to stifle competition, would be if current (or upcoming) regulation was unpredictable and he wanted to reduce risk by getting a clear-cut answer. You maybe could make that argument around something like privacy where there's a mounting wave of public pressure. But at least right now, AI is in no such situation.
- Barrin92 7y agoGoogle probably loses out a good amount of bucks due to their stances on defence work. I don't see how this can be attributed to some sort of cynical corporate play, it's simply company culture. Likewise, I don't see how a lot of these companies calling for facial recognition bans can be considered to be in their interest. When the government looks for large infrastructure those companies are the only real players. Remove all regulation, and the government still not hand their data to some sort of garage startup. CEOs of large companies are totally able to act in good faith towards people other than their shareholders. Of course, often they do not, but they certainly can. The arguments around caution and privacy of citizens are sound and reasonable. Everyone can make them. There is no reason to not listen to Pichai just because he runs a business.