4 ms·

Saving a click, because this basically invalidates the NYT headline: > In the NYT today, Cade Metz implies that I left Google so that I could criticize Google.

• d23 3y ago
  This seems roughly in line with the article. He left to talk about the dangers.
  • cbolton 3y ago
    This tweet is not at all in line with the article. From the article: > Dr. Hinton said he has quit his job at Google, where he has worked for more than decade and became one of the most respected voices in the field, so he can freely speak out about the risks of A.I. A part of him, he said, now regrets his life’s work. > Dr. Hinton, often called “the Godfather of A.I.,” did not sign either of those letters and said he did not want to publicly criticize Google or other companies until he had quit his job. As Hinton says in his tweet, this clearly implies that he left to be free to criticize Google. And the following quote is not really consistent with the other part of Hinton's tweet, that "Google has acted very responsibly": > Until last year, he said, Google acted as a “proper steward” for the technology, careful not to release something that might cause harm. But now that Microsoft has augmented its Bing search engine with a chatbot — challenging Google’s core business — Google is racing to deploy the same kind of technology. The tech giants are locked in a competition that might be impossible to stop, Dr. Hinton said.
    • d23 3y ago
      > said he did not want to publicly criticize Google or other companies until he had quit his job. This seems to me to be the only line in the article that is incorrect or incongruent with what he is now saying - specifically the use of “Google”. It’s about ~10 paragraphs in on a ~20 paragraph article (I’m eyeballing).
    • momojo 3y ago
      > Dr. Hinton said he has quit his job at Google, where he has worked for more than decade and became one of the most respected voices in the field, so he can freely speak out about the risks of A.I. A part of him, he said, now regrets his life’s work. So perhaps he regrets the direction of his work, but not the fact that it occurred at Google.
    • jasonlotito 3y ago
      > As Hinton says in his tweet, this clearly implies that he left to be free to criticize Google. No, it does not imply that at all. The One could interpret it that way, and they would be wrong to interpret it that way, because it doesn't imply that, but I can see how someone without a good grasp of the English language might feel it implies that. That's nuance. But no, it does not imply that at all. And any suggestion that it does imply that is conjecture at best, and not backed up by Dr. Hinton's other tweets on the matter.
      • dougfelt 3y ago
        It appears to me that it is you who is misunderstanding the comment you quoted. Here is the context: >> Dr. Hinton, often called “the Godfather of A.I.,” did not sign either of those letters and said he did not want to publicly criticize Google or other companies until he had quit his job. > As Hinton says in his tweet, this clearly implies that he left to be free to criticize Google. The comment is saying that Hinton, in his tweet, is saying that the article's statement "he did not want to publicly criticize Google... until" is misleading, and he did not leave in order to criticize Google. This is in fact what he said, and this is what cbolton is saying that he said.
        • j33zusjuice 3y ago
          The person you’re replying to is not worth the time. > I can see how someone without a good grasp of the English language might feel it implies that Only an asshole would say that. Only an asshole would be so confidently incorrect.
  • whimsicalism 3y ago
    The article definitely tries to spin it otherwise
    • muzz 3y ago
      Hinton calls it a nuance: https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/status/1653092760163852288 https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/status/165309276016385228...
      • eternalban 3y ago
        He's being extra careful in case others don't read carefully. The article says he did not want to criticize "Google or other companies" until he quit. That does not imply that he quit so he could critize Google specifically. It seems pretty simple: a senior employee of a company typically doesn't critize the employer; and, a Googler doing AI criticizing other companies (such as OpenAI) would undermine his message. So he quit so he could freely criticize everyone in AI.
        • tensor 3y ago
          I find the NYT to be very good at this "technically correct" sort of writing that is easily taken the wrong way. It would not have been hard for them to have included a line up front addressing that Hinton did not quit because he thinks Google acted imperfectly. Another example of them doing this was with the "freedom" protestors in Canada. They claimed that a majority of funding for these protestors came from Canada. While yes, technically that is true, the full context is that some >40% of the funding came from foreign influencers, which is a figure that would alarm anyone if they actually just put the percentage right there. So they were technically correct, but still spun a narrative that was different than the reality.
        • whimsicalism 3y ago
          I am a pretty careful reader. The article is clearly written in a way where they are not saying anything technically wrong, but they are trying to shape the impression the reader is left with. Given how forcefully Hinton seems to have expressed this opinion, it would be easy for them to have included a sentence to better clarify his intent.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• werlrndkis 3y ago
  Nah it’s just circular semantic wank. Criticize does not need to be interpreted through negative emotions. He left Google because he would not be allowed to work there will pooping in the roadmap they’re putting together to counter OpenAI. STEM minded folks need to eat their own science; the emotional response to certain language is not evenly distributed. It’s thought policing af to take your reaction to “criticize” as a universal one.