4 ms·

why assume that the review would be done by a human? I'd wager the "reviewer" it's merely a more computationally expensive process

by bsedlm 4y ago

powerhour 4y ago
Humans are involved at some point, if only while developing the software or writing up the spec. They ought to figure out how to do better.
- bsedlm 4y ago
  but ultimately, the "executives" making the decisions of what software to develop, which bugs to hunt, and so on, are all basing their decisions on data, reports, and many sorts of 'metrics'. Additionally, I suppose in a company as big as Google, all this decision making is backed by written communications. All this written stuff is subject to legal scrutiny. All must abide by 'approved' rules, guidelines, etc.. Squinting a little bit (maybe some may need to squint harder) it's clear that in the end everything is being done according to a computational (written) process. this is essentially what 'skynet' (from the terminator) or the matrix actually means. if every human involved is following data and written guidelines, the decisions are being made by a computer program running across many hundreds of humans pushing "paper" around.
computer23 4y ago
I suppose you're right that it doesn't explicitly say a human is doing the review. It says: Review process If you think this is an error, or if you've modified the file to comply with Google Drive's Terms of Service, you can request a review. 1. Your file will be reviewed This file will remain restricted during the review. 2. A decision will be made If the file is found to be safe, all restrictions will be removed and you’ll be able to use and share it with others. If it's found to be unsafe, the restrictions will remain in place.
- ttgurney 4y ago
  I find this kind of language positively disgusting: > Your file will be reviewed > A decision will be made > If the file is found to be... > ... restrictions will be removed ... It is the archetypical "mistakes were made". Note the constant use of passive voice, intended to hide the actor, and to keep you from even thinking about who is doing these things and thus who is responsible. By the way, no better is the most likely alternative "Google will review...". I'll leave deducing the reasons why as an exercise for the reader.
  - coliveira 4y ago
    Google has created the idea that "an algorithm is responsible" for something. This is never the case. An algorithm is programed by human beings, therefore the humans who created and approved the algorithm are responsible for its decisions. It is just a form of hiding their intent under the disguise of an algorithmic intelligence. I'm pretty sure that if something is bad for Google, it will not be approved despite what "the algorithm" thinks.
    - deltree7 4y ago
      This is spoken by someone who is really clueless about AI and Machine Learning
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Or someone who understands that it's not magic, and there's still humans choosing the dataset, labelling the data and picking the loss function. This is exactly the kind of gaslighting GP was talking about. Just because there are more edge cases where the human has no idea what their algorithm does, doesn't absolve them of responsibility. You don't get to go free after running a bunch of pedestrians over by claiming you were too drunk to know where the road was or which direction your car would turn when you moved the wheel. If I put a running metal lathe in a kindergarten, I don't get to throw my hands up and say 'you clearly don't understand machining' when some children get dismembered.
anonporridge 4y ago
How do you define 'expensive'? Because if it's measured in watt hours, this computational process is almost certainly drastically cheaper than using humans to do the same work, especially if you account for 20+ years of unprofitable training time per compute unit and 76% weekly downtime even at peak productivity.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  I think parent comment mean "a longer automated check than the one that flagged the content". I think he meant no human would make the call, but another routine.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

why assume that the review would be done by a human? I'd wager the "reviewer" it's merely a more computationally expensive process

by bsedlm 4y ago

why assume that the review would be done by a human? I'd wager the "reviewer" it's merely a more computationally expensive process

powerhour 4y ago

Humans are involved at some point, if only while developing the software or writing up the spec. They ought to figure out how to do better.

bsedlm 4y ago
but ultimately, the "executives" making the decisions of what software to develop, which bugs to hunt, and so on, are all basing their decisions on data, reports, and many sorts of 'metrics'. Additionally, I suppose in a company as big as Google, all this decision making is backed by written communications. All this written stuff is subject to legal scrutiny. All must abide by 'approved' rules, guidelines, etc.. Squinting a little bit (maybe some may need to squint harder) it's clear that in the end everything is being done according to a computational (written) process. this is essentially what 'skynet' (from the terminator) or the matrix actually means. if every human involved is following data and written guidelines, the decisions are being made by a computer program running across many hundreds of humans pushing "paper" around.

computer23 4y ago

I suppose you're right that it doesn't explicitly say a human is doing the review. It says: Review process If you think this is an error, or if you've modified the file to comply with Google Drive's Terms of Service, you can request a review. 1. Your file will be reviewed This file will remain restricted during the review. 2. A decision will be made If the file is found to be safe, all restrictions will be removed and you’ll be able to use and share it with others. If it's found to be unsafe, the restrictions will remain in place.

ttgurney 4y ago
I find this kind of language positively disgusting: > Your file will be reviewed > A decision will be made > If the file is found to be... > ... restrictions will be removed ... It is the archetypical "mistakes were made". Note the constant use of passive voice, intended to hide the actor, and to keep you from even thinking about who is doing these things and thus who is responsible. By the way, no better is the most likely alternative "Google will review...". I'll leave deducing the reasons why as an exercise for the reader.
- coliveira 4y ago
  Google has created the idea that "an algorithm is responsible" for something. This is never the case. An algorithm is programed by human beings, therefore the humans who created and approved the algorithm are responsible for its decisions. It is just a form of hiding their intent under the disguise of an algorithmic intelligence. I'm pretty sure that if something is bad for Google, it will not be approved despite what "the algorithm" thinks.
  - deltree7 4y ago
    This is spoken by someone who is really clueless about AI and Machine Learning
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Or someone who understands that it's not magic, and there's still humans choosing the dataset, labelling the data and picking the loss function. This is exactly the kind of gaslighting GP was talking about. Just because there are more edge cases where the human has no idea what their algorithm does, doesn't absolve them of responsibility. You don't get to go free after running a bunch of pedestrians over by claiming you were too drunk to know where the road was or which direction your car would turn when you moved the wheel. If I put a running metal lathe in a kindergarten, I don't get to throw my hands up and say 'you clearly don't understand machining' when some children get dismembered.

anonporridge 4y ago

How do you define 'expensive'? Because if it's measured in watt hours, this computational process is almost certainly drastically cheaper than using humans to do the same work, especially if you account for 20+ years of unprofitable training time per compute unit and 76% weekly downtime even at peak productivity.

ASalazarMX 4y ago
I think parent comment mean "a longer automated check than the one that flagged the content". I think he meant no human would make the call, but another routine.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]