4 ms·

“We, and I personally, believe very strongly that more information is better, even if it’s wrong,” said Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Goo

by veidr 5y ago

“We, and I personally, believe very strongly that more information is better, even if it’s wrong,” said Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google[1] I am reminded of this quote over and over when I encounter those things that are (TIL) absurdly called "knowledge panels". They often confidently present completely wrong information about even trivial things (like the weight of a specific camera or lens). It is distressing (but not really surprising) to hear they are having disastrous consequences about more complex and obviously ambiguous queries, queries that no so-called "AI" should ever be answering, without a prominent disclaimer that the information was generated by a fuzzy-logic computer program without the ability to actually comprehend the topic at hand, and that therefore the information may be completely and utterly incorrect. (Such a disclaimer would obviously destory this "feature", though.) I've always charitably assumed that Schmidt was trying to make some point that is less insane than the quote first sounds, like "correct information will eventually triumph over incorrect information if you just give people all the 'information' you can". But Google increasingly offers me information in ways that seem like he and they just, like, literally meant that quote as it reads. (Also, even if that was the point he was trying to make, it's been thoroughly disproven over the past several years.) [1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/17/google-eric-schmidt-cyber-information-is-good-even-if-its-wrong-fakenews-trump-elections-climatechange-diplomat/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/17/google-eric-schmidt-cyb...

underdeserver 5y ago
Honestly, I think he's right. (Disclaimer: I work for Google. Not on Search or anything closely related.) Anyone who uses Google Search often knows that the results you get are generally right... 95% of the time or so. Even if they tried their damndest, they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near 100% correct. In fact, CGP Grey made the point in several of his YouTube videos and podcasts that even peer-reviewed, accepted papers and history books are sometimes wrong or based on flimsy evidence. What Google search results tell me are what beliefs there are in the world. Many times you'll get multiple results (e.g. multiple pictures of different people under Image Search). Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical - I want to buy this lady's book. Does it really matter what she looks like? - and when it is, I know that sometimes Google is wrong and depending on how much it matters, I double-check with other sources.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  > Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical You heard it here first, folks. edit: (added because it's now hard to read above) > I work for Google.
  - underdeserver 5y ago
    Okay, you got me. I accept the downvotes. You've missed the point and taken it out of context, but I made it way too easy for you. So I'll rephrase: In the context of accomplishing a certain task, the accuracy of some information is crucial and the accuracy of other information is not. For instance, if I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience, I care that she's a woman, that she lives in a western country similar to my own. It doesn't particularly matter to me, in this context, what she looks like, so if I see the wrong photo - it's no big deal. Obviously, the truth matters. And Google can't know what context you care about. But the only way to never be wrong is to never show anything at all. In other words, if you try to be useful and aggregate and show any information at all, you're going to be wrong here and there. Yes, Google should continue working and improving and getting to as high an accuracy as possible, but it's never going to be 100%.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
      In that case, the information itself isn't important either. If it's wrong and it doesn't matter, why is it even being displayed? By definition then, the only people wrong information matters to are the ones it affects. "It's no big deal" to you, but she has been working for years to get this fixed. > the only way to never be wrong is to never show anything at all. How much error does this excuse? Any amount? How's this even helpful if you don't draw that line? And it absolutely doesn't justify a lack of recourse when it does go wrong.
    - mden 5y ago
      > You've missed the point and taken it out of context 1. I find the original quote, at least as presented without additional context, pretty difficult to see as anything but nonsensical. You following it up with "Honestly, I think he's right" and "Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical" is leaning into the same nonsensical position even if you try to cover it with additional context of, well actually there's still useful information. 2. This post is specifically about a woman (or in fact several) who have been harmed from this notion of truth not being critical. And you're doubling down on this with a not so relevant view centered around how it's benefiting you and not about the collateral damage. No one is saying perfect information is possible, but in the very least Google needs to be responsible for negatively affecting people's lives and it needs to provide an easy and reliable way to address situations like this.
foxfluff 5y ago
I wonder if it'll ever hit too close to home for Schmidt. https://imgur.com/a/Al7V662 https://imgur.com/a/Al7V662 (I guess that in his position it's pretty easy to point out this is news concerning another person.. good luck if you're a random nobody)

by veidr 5y ago

underdeserver 5y ago

Honestly, I think he's right. (Disclaimer: I work for Google. Not on Search or anything closely related.) Anyone who uses Google Search often knows that the results you get are generally right... 95% of the time or so. Even if they tried their damndest, they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near 100% correct. In fact, CGP Grey made the point in several of his YouTube videos and podcasts that even peer-reviewed, accepted papers and history books are sometimes wrong or based on flimsy evidence. What Google search results tell me are what beliefs there are in the world. Many times you'll get multiple results (e.g. multiple pictures of different people under Image Search). Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical - I want to buy this lady's book. Does it really matter what she looks like? - and when it is, I know that sometimes Google is wrong and depending on how much it matters, I double-check with other sources.

yesenadam 5y ago
> Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical You heard it here first, folks. edit: (added because it's now hard to read above) > I work for Google.
- underdeserver 5y ago
  Okay, you got me. I accept the downvotes. You've missed the point and taken it out of context, but I made it way too easy for you. So I'll rephrase: In the context of accomplishing a certain task, the accuracy of some information is crucial and the accuracy of other information is not. For instance, if I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience, I care that she's a woman, that she lives in a western country similar to my own. It doesn't particularly matter to me, in this context, what she looks like, so if I see the wrong photo - it's no big deal. Obviously, the truth matters. And Google can't know what context you care about. But the only way to never be wrong is to never show anything at all. In other words, if you try to be useful and aggregate and show any information at all, you're going to be wrong here and there. Yes, Google should continue working and improving and getting to as high an accuracy as possible, but it's never going to be 100%.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    In that case, the information itself isn't important either. If it's wrong and it doesn't matter, why is it even being displayed? By definition then, the only people wrong information matters to are the ones it affects. "It's no big deal" to you, but she has been working for years to get this fixed. > the only way to never be wrong is to never show anything at all. How much error does this excuse? Any amount? How's this even helpful if you don't draw that line? And it absolutely doesn't justify a lack of recourse when it does go wrong.
  - mden 5y ago
    > You've missed the point and taken it out of context 1. I find the original quote, at least as presented without additional context, pretty difficult to see as anything but nonsensical. You following it up with "Honestly, I think he's right" and "Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical" is leaning into the same nonsensical position even if you try to cover it with additional context of, well actually there's still useful information. 2. This post is specifically about a woman (or in fact several) who have been harmed from this notion of truth not being critical. And you're doubling down on this with a not so relevant view centered around how it's benefiting you and not about the collateral damage. No one is saying perfect information is possible, but in the very least Google needs to be responsible for negatively affecting people's lives and it needs to provide an easy and reliable way to address situations like this.

foxfluff 5y ago

I wonder if it'll ever hit too close to home for Schmidt. https://imgur.com/a/Al7V662 https://imgur.com/a/Al7V662 (I guess that in his position it's pretty easy to point out this is news concerning another person.. good luck if you're a random nobody)