5 ms·

Google offers to help others with the tricky ethics of AI

32 points by elsewhen 6y ago

jerrysievert 6y ago
> Google’s new offerings will test whether a lucrative but increasingly distrusted industry can boost its business by offering ethical pointers Isn’t google a big part of why there is so much distrust to begin with? Seems like asking your oxy dealer for detox advice.
- RobLach 6y ago
  Opiate dealers often stock narcan.
  - TallGuyShort 6y ago
    The difference is narcan keeps you a viable customer. Detox ends the relationship. Same reason someone might render medical aid to a slave. Doesn't make it a charitable act.
  - aabhay 6y ago
    But only the worst dealers would sell it, most would just keep it or give it to you. It’s the quintessential olive branch — “Keep buying drugs from me, I’m the nice one”
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  No they are the big scapegoat. Seriously it is a zeitgeisted Big Lie where they streneously insist it is a problem and make impossible ignorant standards while failing to provide evidence just fear mongered bullshit from the losers. The actual problems with AI ethics are down to "it isn't ready for that morons" and "It would be obviously abusable even if it was jackass."
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    There are real problems deploying biased systems. Facial recognition is a big issue. That’s not a problem of users, but of the creators.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      Facial recognition will be a far bigger problem when it works perfectly.
      - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
        Sure but biased AI disproportionately affects people of color which is very bad already.
        yablak 6y ago
        Why was this downvoted? It's absolutely true and a big topic in AI fairness and ethics work.
        TaylorAlexander 6y ago
        Honestly I don’t know if it’s the algorithm or I’m just becoming more radical than the average HN person but I’m seeing more and more weird/senseless downvotes on my comments lately. Makes me want to find another place to hang out. If people here don’t care about marginalized groups then I should be somewhere where they do.
- ilaksh 6y ago
  I feel sure that the US military has access to every bit of code at Deep Mind. Although they seem to publish most everything anyway. Just not always with all the code. That's literally the "killer" application that 100% has obsessed many military planners ever since they saw the Atari playing demos. And whether people recognize it or not, those are the killer robots. They are built into fighters, defense and planning systems. Regardless of any objections or how many people sign letters against killer robots, the military strategists have no choice but to include the most sophisticated software available. Now I assume that there is some "failsafe" in most of not all operational systems that prevent actions that are not authorized. But it is also necessary to make that authorization fairly vague in some circumstances. And there is quite possibly a way to turn that failsafe off in the case of a war or scenarios where they feel there is no time to wait for the human (which seems guaranteed assuming the other side has AI also).
wow_no 6y ago
Hahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha
ooobit2 6y ago
I made it two paragraphs before I remembered the preface of Google's code of conduct was stripped of the line "Don't be evil." It's now the last line, which to me reads as doing the ethical thing is an afterthought. The much more ambiguous "Do the right thing," is in Alphabet's corporate code. We need the ethics of AI to be an offshoot of open source. It's tough to suggest that in an environment where enough people can pressure a group to adopt objectively unethical policies, but at the very least open source communities do not have the trigger of financial risk. Google is going to need to make money from this "Ethics as a Service" eventually. And that is an obvious, all too obvious conflict of interest for what Google envisions. Maybe they can do this. I'm not 100% objecting to the idea. But I'd like to suggest they start with YouTube. Ads on the platform have quadrupled since November 2019. Creators are playing a lottery with monetization every other upload, and they're making as little as 1-5% compared to YouTube's ad-share program 10 years ago. Start there.
- twitch-chat 6y ago
  As far as the ethics of AI goes, would "don't be evil" slogan be better than "do the right thing"? I'm sure people may interpret things differently but doing the right thing would mean Google making AI that has a positive net impact on society, while "don't be evil" could simply mean good for Google but neutral to everyone else.
  - galuggus 6y ago
    It's easier to know what is wrong that what is right.
_alex_ 6y ago
Ag yes, that paragon of ethical data use, Google.
- revel 6y ago
  Next up: "Media accuracy and journalism standards" by Facebook
- tomc1985 6y ago
  Exactly. I do not think Google is in a position to lead the conversation of ethics given how much they covet user data An ethical AI needs to be able to function without gorging itself on users' private data
throwaway316943 6y ago
Please don’t
SMAAART 6y ago
Step 1. Do no evil Step 2. JK
spodek 6y ago
Google helping on ethics: the blind leading the blind! Some fun history: I thought the phrase originated with the Christian bible: > "when the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" but Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind traces it to the Upanishads: > "Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind."
fencepost 6y ago
Gah. I'm experimenting with an iPhone as a second phone to dip my toes into the iOS ecosystem because despite their other flaws they've at least learned the lesson "don't be fckn' creepy" which Google has not. Being able to count on probably 5 years of OS and security updates instead of the mishmash of abandoned handsets or potential security nightmares with hobbyist firmwares is another nice feature.
seneca 6y ago
Google is in such a strange state. I deal with Googlers several times a week, and their defining characteristic is hubris. It seems like their arrogance blinds them to the fact that their credibility has been in a free-fall for years. Publishing articles like this is just laughably tone deaf.
theptip 6y ago
A lot of knee-jerk Google-hating in this thread, which I think is unfounded in this specific context. Google’s AI safety and AI bias toolchain is by far the most robust that I’ve seen. Seems to me that they are investing much more heavily than other players. Note that this is a different issue than data privacy, which Google rightly takes flak on. AI bias is referring to questions like “if I train a network to (sentence criminals, price insurance, ...), how do I detect if the resulting predictions are racially biased?” The conversation on this subject by lay folks is rife with statistical ignorance, and Google has done good work communicating and clarifying the conversational starting points. This is a hard issue because it takes ethical trade-offs and forces you to specify mathematically exactly how you want to handle inequality, which is a subject that most people haven’t thought through rigorously, and would rather hand-wave away with virtuous sound bites. For example, see http://research.google.com/bigpicture/attacking-discrimination-in-ml/ http://research.google.com/bigpicture/attacking-discriminati...
- amelius 6y ago
  If Google were serious about safety, they wouldn't be after medical data. Instead, they would offer their software to universities and hospitals and let them run their software on their data.
  - tanaros 6y ago
    How do you build the software without the data? It seems that, even if the eventual goal is entirely on-premises computation, there still needs to be a period where Google has access to the data. One might suggest that Google could create partnerships with medical facilities in order to do the development. Of course, as soon as the news of any partnership with Google arrives, there's an immediate outcry over the data privacy issues. It seems impossible for them to act in this space without receiving flak. I believe there's also the risk that, since they're going to be blamed for all possible evils whether they do them or not, they may as well go ahead and reap the rewards of such bad behavior.
    - amelius 6y ago
_Nat_ 6y ago
> Longer term, the company may offer to audit customers’ AI systems for ethical integrity, and charge for ethics advice. If Google'll act as any other company in a free market, then this'd seem like a neat offering. Maybe it'll be a helpful service, or maybe it'll be a flop; but, worst-case scenario, just don't use their service if it's no good. But the language of "auditing" and "charg[ing] for ethics advice" sounds almost like someone's laying the groundwork for regulatory authority over AI.
adamlangsner 6y ago
Google offers help with ethics. Love this headline! So funny!
rbecker 6y ago
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority - a sneaky way for a private entity to act as de-facto arbiter and censor.

32 points by elsewhen 6y ago

> Google’s new offerings will test whether a lucrative but increasingly distrusted industry can boost its business by offering ethical pointers Isn’t google a big part of why there is so much distrust to begin with? Seems like asking your oxy dealer for detox advice.

RobLach 6y ago
Opiate dealers often stock narcan.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  The difference is narcan keeps you a viable customer. Detox ends the relationship. Same reason someone might render medical aid to a slave. Doesn't make it a charitable act.
- aabhay 6y ago
  But only the worst dealers would sell it, most would just keep it or give it to you. It’s the quintessential olive branch — “Keep buying drugs from me, I’m the nice one”
Nasrudith 6y ago
No they are the big scapegoat. Seriously it is a zeitgeisted Big Lie where they streneously insist it is a problem and make impossible ignorant standards while failing to provide evidence just fear mongered bullshit from the losers. The actual problems with AI ethics are down to "it isn't ready for that morons" and "It would be obviously abusable even if it was jackass."
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  There are real problems deploying biased systems. Facial recognition is a big issue. That’s not a problem of users, but of the creators.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    Facial recognition will be a far bigger problem when it works perfectly.
    - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
      Sure but biased AI disproportionately affects people of color which is very bad already.
      - yablak 6y ago
        Why was this downvoted? It's absolutely true and a big topic in AI fairness and ethics work.
        TaylorAlexander 6y ago
        Honestly I don’t know if it’s the algorithm or I’m just becoming more radical than the average HN person but I’m seeing more and more weird/senseless downvotes on my comments lately. Makes me want to find another place to hang out. If people here don’t care about marginalized groups then I should be somewhere where they do.
ilaksh 6y ago
I feel sure that the US military has access to every bit of code at Deep Mind. Although they seem to publish most everything anyway. Just not always with all the code. That's literally the "killer" application that 100% has obsessed many military planners ever since they saw the Atari playing demos. And whether people recognize it or not, those are the killer robots. They are built into fighters, defense and planning systems. Regardless of any objections or how many people sign letters against killer robots, the military strategists have no choice but to include the most sophisticated software available. Now I assume that there is some "failsafe" in most of not all operational systems that prevent actions that are not authorized. But it is also necessary to make that authorization fairly vague in some circumstances. And there is quite possibly a way to turn that failsafe off in the case of a war or scenarios where they feel there is no time to wait for the human (which seems guaranteed assuming the other side has AI also).

wow_no 6y ago

Hahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha

ooobit2 6y ago

I made it two paragraphs before I remembered the preface of Google's code of conduct was stripped of the line "Don't be evil." It's now the last line, which to me reads as doing the ethical thing is an afterthought. The much more ambiguous "Do the right thing," is in Alphabet's corporate code. We need the ethics of AI to be an offshoot of open source. It's tough to suggest that in an environment where enough people can pressure a group to adopt objectively unethical policies, but at the very least open source communities do not have the trigger of financial risk. Google is going to need to make money from this "Ethics as a Service" eventually. And that is an obvious, all too obvious conflict of interest for what Google envisions. Maybe they can do this. I'm not 100% objecting to the idea. But I'd like to suggest they start with YouTube. Ads on the platform have quadrupled since November 2019. Creators are playing a lottery with monetization every other upload, and they're making as little as 1-5% compared to YouTube's ad-share program 10 years ago. Start there.

twitch-chat 6y ago
As far as the ethics of AI goes, would "don't be evil" slogan be better than "do the right thing"? I'm sure people may interpret things differently but doing the right thing would mean Google making AI that has a positive net impact on society, while "don't be evil" could simply mean good for Google but neutral to everyone else.
- galuggus 6y ago
  It's easier to know what is wrong that what is right.

_alex_ 6y ago

Ag yes, that paragon of ethical data use, Google.

revel 6y ago
Next up: "Media accuracy and journalism standards" by Facebook
tomc1985 6y ago
Exactly. I do not think Google is in a position to lead the conversation of ethics given how much they covet user data An ethical AI needs to be able to function without gorging itself on users' private data

throwaway316943 6y ago

Please don’t

SMAAART 6y ago

Step 1. Do no evil Step 2. JK

spodek 6y ago

Google helping on ethics: the blind leading the blind! Some fun history: I thought the phrase originated with the Christian bible: > "when the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" but Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind traces it to the Upanishads: > "Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind."

fencepost 6y ago

Gah. I'm experimenting with an iPhone as a second phone to dip my toes into the iOS ecosystem because despite their other flaws they've at least learned the lesson "don't be fckn' creepy" which Google has not. Being able to count on probably 5 years of OS and security updates instead of the mishmash of abandoned handsets or potential security nightmares with hobbyist firmwares is another nice feature.

seneca 6y ago

Google is in such a strange state. I deal with Googlers several times a week, and their defining characteristic is hubris. It seems like their arrogance blinds them to the fact that their credibility has been in a free-fall for years. Publishing articles like this is just laughably tone deaf.

theptip 6y ago

A lot of knee-jerk Google-hating in this thread, which I think is unfounded in this specific context. Google’s AI safety and AI bias toolchain is by far the most robust that I’ve seen. Seems to me that they are investing much more heavily than other players. Note that this is a different issue than data privacy, which Google rightly takes flak on. AI bias is referring to questions like “if I train a network to (sentence criminals, price insurance, ...), how do I detect if the resulting predictions are racially biased?” The conversation on this subject by lay folks is rife with statistical ignorance, and Google has done good work communicating and clarifying the conversational starting points. This is a hard issue because it takes ethical trade-offs and forces you to specify mathematically exactly how you want to handle inequality, which is a subject that most people haven’t thought through rigorously, and would rather hand-wave away with virtuous sound bites. For example, see http://research.google.com/bigpicture/attacking-discrimination-in-ml/ http://research.google.com/bigpicture/attacking-discriminati...

amelius 6y ago
If Google were serious about safety, they wouldn't be after medical data. Instead, they would offer their software to universities and hospitals and let them run their software on their data.
- tanaros 6y ago
  How do you build the software without the data? It seems that, even if the eventual goal is entirely on-premises computation, there still needs to be a period where Google has access to the data. One might suggest that Google could create partnerships with medical facilities in order to do the development. Of course, as soon as the news of any partnership with Google arrives, there's an immediate outcry over the data privacy issues. It seems impossible for them to act in this space without receiving flak. I believe there's also the risk that, since they're going to be blamed for all possible evils whether they do them or not, they may as well go ahead and reap the rewards of such bad behavior.
  - amelius 6y ago

_Nat_ 6y ago

> Longer term, the company may offer to audit customers’ AI systems for ethical integrity, and charge for ethics advice. If Google'll act as any other company in a free market, then this'd seem like a neat offering. Maybe it'll be a helpful service, or maybe it'll be a flop; but, worst-case scenario, just don't use their service if it's no good. But the language of "auditing" and "charg[ing] for ethics advice" sounds almost like someone's laying the groundwork for regulatory authority over AI.

adamlangsner 6y ago

Google offers help with ethics. Love this headline! So funny!

rbecker 6y ago

Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority - a sneaky way for a private entity to act as de-facto arbiter and censor.