7 ms·

Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the prod

Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the products were harmful, but their results were squelched. “Do no harm,” indeed.

ruslanbogan 6y ago
The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist
- oblio 6y ago
  > The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist. I'm not sure I understand. Are they worse or better?
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    Algorithmic biases and their application to human systems are a very interesting, and important topic. And yes, they can be unfair to already disadvantaged people But I think the discussion too easily devolves into the craziest humanities self-pleasing circles. Then they are surprised they get push back? Of course Google also share their side of the blame when they think just creating an "ethics commission" with a rubber stamp solves their issue
  - piokoch 6y ago
    That's an actually good question. AI is supposed to be fed with real-live data, after all it has to be something usable in the real-world. Now, you feed AI with crime data, looking at statistics such AI will suspect people having black color of the skin to be criminals more often than people with white skin. Is that ok? Is it ok to say that if some person happens to have black skin there is a bigger chance that it is criminal? In statistical terms the answer is yes, but if we deal with an actual person, we should treat it as a unique person and the matter of the skin color should not matter. Before II World War there were scientific studies in Germany that showed that in some big cities districts there are more rats. Accidentally or not, it turned out that those are districts with large Jewish population. So Nazis took those statistical results to prove that Jews are dirty, spread diseases, etc. Was that science, even though it was peer reviewed and published? Rather not (in the first place they didn't even bother to check if people living there were rich, poor, etc.). History knows many "scientific researches" by the ones like Eugen Fisher, dr. Mengele, that were performed in a scientific way, but they were lacking something very important and non-trivial: ethics. Now the problem is that ethics needs to have some source, it does not grow on a tree. For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe (less in US, that's why you could have slavery in modern times there), currently Christianity is almost gone in Europe, the question is were to seek the source of ethics.
    - staktrace 6y ago
      > In statistical terms the answer is yes, Not actually. Statistics from a larger population "cannot" be used to predict outcomes from a smaller subset or individual from the population. ("cannot" in the sense that you get nonsensical results if you do). See e.g. the ecological fallacy.
    - oblio 6y ago
      > Now the problem is that ethics needs to have some source, it does not grow on a tree. For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe (less in US, that's why you could have slavery in modern times there), currently Christianity is almost gone in Europe, the question is were to seek the source of ethics. Europe had philosophers long before it had Christianity.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      > For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe (less in US, that's why you could have slavery in modern times there) This is completely incoherent and ahistorical; the US was in many ways more Christian, or at least more intensely Christian and making it a key part of its politics, right from the Pilgrim Fathers to televangelists. People gave pro-slavery speeches from pulpits in both the US and UK. There were some Christians against it, most notably the Quakers, but slavery and the alleged moral justifications for it were in no way incompatible with Christianity. Even today, US churches tend to be ("voluntarily") segregated.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      > For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe Two angels arrive in Sodom, and Lot shows them hospitality. However, the men of the city gathered around Lot's house and demanded that he give them the two guests so that they could rape them. In response to this, Lot offers the mob his two virgin daughters instead. ... Lot's wife turns into a pillar of salt, but Lot and his daughters escape to Zoar, and end up living in a cave in the mountains. In Genesis 19:30–38 Lot's daughters got their father drunk, and over two consecutive nights had sex with him without his knowledge.
      - 6y ago
- square_usual 6y ago
  Can you show me five philosophy graduate turned AI researcher who thinks if statements are racist? If AI research teams are "full of" them, as you say, it should be trivial to find such people.
  - zo1 6y ago
    def approve_home_loan(applicant): if applicant.residence.average_medium_value < PRICE_CUT_OFF: return False ## Apparently racist. # other code
    - asddubs 6y ago
      so in other words, they don't think if statements are racist and it's actually much more nuanced than that. what a surprise
- FemmeAndroid 6y ago
  Do you have an example of one of these ‘philosophy graduates’ you’re describing? The only person I’m closely aware of here is Timnit Gebru. She has a bachelors and masters in Electrical Engineering as well as a PhD. If you’re describing her and her ilk as ‘philosophy graduates’ because they have PhDs, I think you’re vastly mischaracterizing their education.
  - Lukas_Skywalker 6y ago
    Maybe your parent commenter confuses PhD ("Doctor of Philosophy") with a graduation in philosophy?
    - daniel957 6y ago
      No, he was just being a racist, misogynistic ass.
      - daniel957 6y ago
        Not sure why this is getting downvotes. When people say things like that, they’re usually racist and misogynistic. His comment was flagged for a reason.
        lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        An absurd and highly inappropriate comment. You’re the first to bring up race. There is absolutely no reason to infer that parent has any issue with race or sex whatsoever.
        daniel957 6y ago
        It’s called a dog whistle. You don’t have to specifically mention race or gender in order to imply something about it. It’s not inappropriate. I didn’t flag his comment. Someone else did. It should have been flagged and rightfully was. I think your points would come across better if you didn’t use such extreme words (absurd, highly inappropriate, absolutely). It’s your opinion, not a fact. I also find it funny that _my_ comment is highly inappropriate but the actual comment that was flagged is not? Why do you think that? I’m assuming you didn’t get a chance to read it, which begs the question, “Why did you feel the need to champion this cause?”
bitcharmer 6y ago
Well, Google removed "Don't be evil" as their slogan quite some time ago. Don't think that was by an error.
- Grazester 6y ago
  Am I the only one that gets tied of the "Don't be evil" post each time a Google related post is made? It's like beating a dead horse.
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    Maybe because the horse is still sitting there dead? :)
- aikinai 6y ago
  This is a rumor that won’t die because it’s too enticing to believe and tack onto any anti-Google sentiment. The phrase was only moved from the introduction to the conclusion of the code of conduct, never removed.
  - fractionalhare 6y ago
    Checks out, as of September 2020: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
    - tanilama 6y ago
      > No Retaliation > Google prohibits retaliation against any worker here at Google who reports or participates in an investigation of a possible violation of our Code, policies, or the law. If you believe you are being retaliated against, please contact Ethics & Compliance. Well, it is safe to say this is hot garbage then. I would love Google to remove all the self entitled BS from this statement, so they can act as an everyday faceless big company which is anyway what it is doing, not some moral beacon for the mass to look up to. The statement exists only to generate traffic for the news outlet for spinning.
Shivetya 6y ago
tl;dr - if we don't create it, control it, and make sure everyone knows about it, someone else is going to make all those decisions for you. Its coming regardless These are not equivalent comparisons to me. Tobacco was always harmful, inhaling smoke in general is just bad, and the others could be through improper use but safe otherwise. Let alone all of what you mentioned will not have the impact AI will AI's potential is equally good and equally bad and any of the bad is purely because someone or some group employs it that way. The real danger of AI isn't the obvious tinpot dictators using it drive war but in politicians and government officials hiding behind the term as an excuse for their bad decisions. The more you demand of your government to give you stuff or services the more likely you will be subject to this tech I say this each time the subject of AI abuse, facial recognition or similar comes up. This is not something that cancel culture will stop. Nothing is going to stop it from coming. So the best alternative to the technically and morally (hate using that word) driven people is to hit it head on from all directions. This means working to make sure it does what it is supposed to do but also that everyone knows what it really cannot do, working the legal end to insure there are laws and consequences for employing the technology incorrectly, and through the information end in keeping the public fully aware of who is using, how they use it, and how to legally protect yourself from it.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > someone else is going to make all those decisions for you Well, yes, and in this case that someone appears to be Google, which is why people are complaining about them making AI decisions.
mhh__ 6y ago
It seems to be an unfortunate reality of doing research for anything other than the sake of research. My physics teacher worked for some kind of government air pollution modelling group in the past, and effectively said that they would often be told "Here's the result, find us data to make it work".
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  It seems like corruption that does billions in damages and costs lives
- ksec 6y ago
  "The basic rule of Government, never set up an inquiry or research unless you know in advance what its findings will be," - Sir Humphrey
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Wasn’t the requirement to add a mention of the things google has done to improve the situation, rather than a squelching? It’s like if an asbestos company did a bunch of research on healthy insulators, then found that the original products were in fact harmful. Before publishing it, the bosses demand mention of the prior work towards healthy insulators.

ruslanbogan 6y ago

The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist

oblio 6y ago
> The difference is that AI research teams are full of philosophy graduates who think if statements are racist. I'm not sure I understand. Are they worse or better?
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Algorithmic biases and their application to human systems are a very interesting, and important topic. And yes, they can be unfair to already disadvantaged people But I think the discussion too easily devolves into the craziest humanities self-pleasing circles. Then they are surprised they get push back? Of course Google also share their side of the blame when they think just creating an "ethics commission" with a rubber stamp solves their issue
- piokoch 6y ago
  That's an actually good question. AI is supposed to be fed with real-live data, after all it has to be something usable in the real-world. Now, you feed AI with crime data, looking at statistics such AI will suspect people having black color of the skin to be criminals more often than people with white skin. Is that ok? Is it ok to say that if some person happens to have black skin there is a bigger chance that it is criminal? In statistical terms the answer is yes, but if we deal with an actual person, we should treat it as a unique person and the matter of the skin color should not matter. Before II World War there were scientific studies in Germany that showed that in some big cities districts there are more rats. Accidentally or not, it turned out that those are districts with large Jewish population. So Nazis took those statistical results to prove that Jews are dirty, spread diseases, etc. Was that science, even though it was peer reviewed and published? Rather not (in the first place they didn't even bother to check if people living there were rich, poor, etc.). History knows many "scientific researches" by the ones like Eugen Fisher, dr. Mengele, that were performed in a scientific way, but they were lacking something very important and non-trivial: ethics. Now the problem is that ethics needs to have some source, it does not grow on a tree. For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe (less in US, that's why you could have slavery in modern times there), currently Christianity is almost gone in Europe, the question is were to seek the source of ethics.
  - staktrace 6y ago
    > In statistical terms the answer is yes, Not actually. Statistics from a larger population "cannot" be used to predict outcomes from a smaller subset or individual from the population. ("cannot" in the sense that you get nonsensical results if you do). See e.g. the ecological fallacy.
  - oblio 6y ago
    > Now the problem is that ethics needs to have some source, it does not grow on a tree. For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe (less in US, that's why you could have slavery in modern times there), currently Christianity is almost gone in Europe, the question is were to seek the source of ethics. Europe had philosophers long before it had Christianity.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe (less in US, that's why you could have slavery in modern times there) This is completely incoherent and ahistorical; the US was in many ways more Christian, or at least more intensely Christian and making it a key part of its politics, right from the Pilgrim Fathers to televangelists. People gave pro-slavery speeches from pulpits in both the US and UK. There were some Christians against it, most notably the Quakers, but slavery and the alleged moral justifications for it were in no way incompatible with Christianity. Even today, US churches tend to be ("voluntarily") segregated.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    > For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe Two angels arrive in Sodom, and Lot shows them hospitality. However, the men of the city gathered around Lot's house and demanded that he give them the two guests so that they could rape them. In response to this, Lot offers the mob his two virgin daughters instead. ... Lot's wife turns into a pillar of salt, but Lot and his daughters escape to Zoar, and end up living in a cave in the mountains. In Genesis 19:30–38 Lot's daughters got their father drunk, and over two consecutive nights had sex with him without his knowledge.
    - 6y ago
square_usual 6y ago
Can you show me five philosophy graduate turned AI researcher who thinks if statements are racist? If AI research teams are "full of" them, as you say, it should be trivial to find such people.
- zo1 6y ago
  def approve_home_loan(applicant): if applicant.residence.average_medium_value < PRICE_CUT_OFF: return False ## Apparently racist. # other code
  - asddubs 6y ago
    so in other words, they don't think if statements are racist and it's actually much more nuanced than that. what a surprise
FemmeAndroid 6y ago
Do you have an example of one of these ‘philosophy graduates’ you’re describing? The only person I’m closely aware of here is Timnit Gebru. She has a bachelors and masters in Electrical Engineering as well as a PhD. If you’re describing her and her ilk as ‘philosophy graduates’ because they have PhDs, I think you’re vastly mischaracterizing their education.
- Lukas_Skywalker 6y ago
  Maybe your parent commenter confuses PhD ("Doctor of Philosophy") with a graduation in philosophy?
  - daniel957 6y ago
    No, he was just being a racist, misogynistic ass.
    - daniel957 6y ago
      Not sure why this is getting downvotes. When people say things like that, they’re usually racist and misogynistic. His comment was flagged for a reason.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        An absurd and highly inappropriate comment. You’re the first to bring up race. There is absolutely no reason to infer that parent has any issue with race or sex whatsoever.
        daniel957 6y ago
        It’s called a dog whistle. You don’t have to specifically mention race or gender in order to imply something about it. It’s not inappropriate. I didn’t flag his comment. Someone else did. It should have been flagged and rightfully was. I think your points would come across better if you didn’t use such extreme words (absurd, highly inappropriate, absolutely). It’s your opinion, not a fact. I also find it funny that _my_ comment is highly inappropriate but the actual comment that was flagged is not? Why do you think that? I’m assuming you didn’t get a chance to read it, which begs the question, “Why did you feel the need to champion this cause?”

bitcharmer 6y ago

Well, Google removed "Don't be evil" as their slogan quite some time ago. Don't think that was by an error.

Grazester 6y ago
Am I the only one that gets tied of the "Don't be evil" post each time a Google related post is made? It's like beating a dead horse.
- csharptwdec19 6y ago
  Maybe because the horse is still sitting there dead? :)
aikinai 6y ago
This is a rumor that won’t die because it’s too enticing to believe and tack onto any anti-Google sentiment. The phrase was only moved from the introduction to the conclusion of the code of conduct, never removed.
- fractionalhare 6y ago
  Checks out, as of September 2020: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
  - tanilama 6y ago
    > No Retaliation > Google prohibits retaliation against any worker here at Google who reports or participates in an investigation of a possible violation of our Code, policies, or the law. If you believe you are being retaliated against, please contact Ethics & Compliance. Well, it is safe to say this is hot garbage then. I would love Google to remove all the self entitled BS from this statement, so they can act as an everyday faceless big company which is anyway what it is doing, not some moral beacon for the mass to look up to. The statement exists only to generate traffic for the news outlet for spinning.

Shivetya 6y ago

tl;dr - if we don't create it, control it, and make sure everyone knows about it, someone else is going to make all those decisions for you. Its coming regardless These are not equivalent comparisons to me. Tobacco was always harmful, inhaling smoke in general is just bad, and the others could be through improper use but safe otherwise. Let alone all of what you mentioned will not have the impact AI will AI's potential is equally good and equally bad and any of the bad is purely because someone or some group employs it that way. The real danger of AI isn't the obvious tinpot dictators using it drive war but in politicians and government officials hiding behind the term as an excuse for their bad decisions. The more you demand of your government to give you stuff or services the more likely you will be subject to this tech I say this each time the subject of AI abuse, facial recognition or similar comes up. This is not something that cancel culture will stop. Nothing is going to stop it from coming. So the best alternative to the technically and morally (hate using that word) driven people is to hit it head on from all directions. This means working to make sure it does what it is supposed to do but also that everyone knows what it really cannot do, working the legal end to insure there are laws and consequences for employing the technology incorrectly, and through the information end in keeping the public fully aware of who is using, how they use it, and how to legally protect yourself from it.

pjc50 6y ago
> someone else is going to make all those decisions for you Well, yes, and in this case that someone appears to be Google, which is why people are complaining about them making AI decisions.

mhh__ 6y ago

It seems to be an unfortunate reality of doing research for anything other than the sake of research. My physics teacher worked for some kind of government air pollution modelling group in the past, and effectively said that they would often be told "Here's the result, find us data to make it work".

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
It seems like corruption that does billions in damages and costs lives
ksec 6y ago
"The basic rule of Government, never set up an inquiry or research unless you know in advance what its findings will be," - Sir Humphrey

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

Wasn’t the requirement to add a mention of the things google has done to improve the situation, rather than a squelching? It’s like if an asbestos company did a bunch of research on healthy insulators, then found that the original products were in fact harmful. Before publishing it, the bosses demand mention of the prior work towards healthy insulators.