3 ms·

Google isn't a company run by some AI algorithm though, at least not yet. At the end of the day it's run by people. When something gets this much public notic

Google isn't a company run by some AI algorithm though, at least not yet. At the end of the day it's run by people. When something gets this much public notice (or even much less than it), people step in to take control and make the decisions. If this high-profile PR-damaging ban was confirmed up to fairly high levels of the company (which it must have been by now), then there's a clear reason for it that's a lot stronger than "Well this black box algorithm doesn't like him and we don't know why". To return to the original post that started this conversation subthread: > I don't believe no one has noticed at Google yet. There has to be something else at this point. I think that's true, it's just that those of us on the outside will never find out the real reason because the decisionmakers within Google are deciding to stay silent about this for whatever reason.

WorldMaker 6y ago
I'm saying that in a company like Google in the mindstate of Silicon Valley, they've invested millions into the system and they start from an ideal image that the system is unbiased and "fair" and good. Even if it goes to the highest levels in the company, they aren't playing the game "prove why the system was wrong", they are are playing the game "prove why the millions of dollars we poured into this system were right". Especially if they are at fairly high levels of the company removed from the day to day maintenance of the system, they have more personally invested in assuming the system works right, in believing the system to be an unbiased and "fair" black box (because their personal reputations get tied to the company's reputations get tied to the system's reputation). I think the "something else" is just general mistrust in broken "guilty until proven innocent" systems. I believe people have noticed, but the system still wins because the system is usually "right". It's the "benign" AI bureaucracy "utopia" Google (and a lot of Silicon Valley) keeps saying they all want and keeps trying to build doing exactly what it was built to do, absolve humans of human decisions and blame it on the "fair" black box. But maybe I'm just a huge cynic about human nature.

WorldMaker 6y ago

I'm saying that in a company like Google in the mindstate of Silicon Valley, they've invested millions into the system and they start from an ideal image that the system is unbiased and "fair" and good. Even if it goes to the highest levels in the company, they aren't playing the game "prove why the system was wrong", they are are playing the game "prove why the millions of dollars we poured into this system were right". Especially if they are at fairly high levels of the company removed from the day to day maintenance of the system, they have more personally invested in assuming the system works right, in believing the system to be an unbiased and "fair" black box (because their personal reputations get tied to the company's reputations get tied to the system's reputation). I think the "something else" is just general mistrust in broken "guilty until proven innocent" systems. I believe people have noticed, but the system still wins because the system is usually "right". It's the "benign" AI bureaucracy "utopia" Google (and a lot of Silicon Valley) keeps saying they all want and keeps trying to build doing exactly what it was built to do, absolve humans of human decisions and blame it on the "fair" black box. But maybe I'm just a huge cynic about human nature.