6 ms·

They have no concept of how complex ranking is. There are millions of factors being fed into massive machine learning systems that try to predict which results

by paul 11y ago

They have no concept of how complex ranking is. There are millions of factors being fed into massive machine learning systems that try to predict which results users want (which is different from which they are most likely to click). It's like asking to see the algorithm for a cat. They should go back to working on their own "Google killer" search engine :) http://www.infoworld.com/article/2672709/operating-systems/europe-s--google-killer--goes-into-hiding.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2672709/operating-systems/e...

DavidSJ 11y ago
If Google actually had the algorithm for a cat, I'd like to see them release that too.
- stretchwithme 11y ago
  Its freely available. A copy can be found in every cell of every cat.
  - ehmmm 11y ago
    Algorithm is not the same as the the source code, which is what genes contain. We have obtained them trough gene sequencing, but we still don't know how organisms work and grow.
- compbio 11y ago
  They have: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/using-large-scale-brain-simulations-for.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/using-large-scale-bra... Furthermore they already published their search engine algorithm: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html
jfoster 11y ago
Plus those factors and their weightings would be changing on a very regular basis. Then there's also the personalization and localization layers of search. Would each user be able to see the weightings specific to them, or would Google just publish the general algorithm with weightings left unspecified? Another open question is what degree of disclosure is being requested from Google. Suppose Google just give them the daily dump of weightings and such from the machine learning systems. Does that qualify as disclosure? They may have a hell of a time trying to figure out whether there is any bias in the system using that. They may just refuse to believe how complex the system is, and think that Google is being difficult.
gress 11y ago
They clearly don't understand the complexity, but just because it's complex doesn't mean it's not biased, and if nobody is allowed to audit it, we will never know.
- wyager 11y ago
  So? Why isn't Google allowed to make a biased search algorithm? And again, you might as well be saying "just because cats are complex doesn't mean they're not biased, and if nobody's allowed to audit them, we will never know". Even Google probably doesn't know the specifics of what their engine has learned.
  - untog 11y ago
    The central issue here is whether Google are biased towards their own services, and as such abusing their market position. The rest of the bias doesn't matter.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      The former doesn't imply the latter. Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. That's not an example of biased search results; that's useful integration. And I can't see any possible reason why Google should be forced to make the same integration possible with MapQuest.
      - mercurial 11y ago
        > Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. It's also useful to open a link from Word. Do you see any reason why Microsoft should make it possible to open it in anything else than IE? The way the game works is that you can get away with vertical integration and anti-competitive behaviour as long as you are not in a situation of monopoly. Then the rules change.
Brakenshire 11y ago
Unfortunately the generation of politicians that are currently in power are by default tech-illiterate - there will be some who really know what they're talking about, but they will be those people who have needed to actively pick up that information. In general I would not bet on a randomly selected politician being able to describe what a browser is. It's a shame, because well-judged monopolies action is valuable. You can see the potential in the way that the standardization on USB has been nudged and cajoled on tablets, e-reader, phones, and tablets.
paulsutter 11y ago
It's convenient to think our work is so sophisticated, and that lawmakers are simpletons. But that's a naive view. They want the algorithm disclosed as a legal matter to determine whether competitors are disadvantaged. Which probably means they are more interested in email than source code. There exist hyperintelligent lawyers. Yes, smart enough to understand search. A law firm like Keker and Van Nest [1] could go in there and answer the question. France could be willing to spend a billion to find out, and that's more than they need. Legislation of technology is frightening to any technologist. But it's much more dangerous if we dismiss the process as ridiculous and refuse to recognize any underlying concerns. Because then technologists won't have any say in the outcome. [1] http://www.kvn.com/ http://www.kvn.com/ EDIT: Paul you're such a prominent guy, I don't mean to speak too strongly, but people really listen to what you say. Entrepreneurs ought to know that legal matters are not so easily dismissed. I do hope, generously speaking, the startups are the ones that call KVN and not the legislators.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Google has (very effectively) played the "oh noes, it's all machine learning" card. But machine learning is nothing more than codified human judgement (yes, I get that for example the conditional expectation minimizes the expected squared error, but who picked the expected squared error to minimize?) The point is, they wish the ranking algorithm to be seen as some divine choice and hence not subject to criticism rather than a mathematical extension of human choices. So has google put a finger on the scale to rank google properties more highly? Based on their behavior with the results page (vs yelp, for example), I would be surprised if they do, but not very surprised. Nonetheless, now that google search results are the internet for many people -- and chrome's address bar is used to help blur that distinction -- it's fair that people outside google, represented by governments, start having a say in who shows up and where. That's what happens when you're a monopoly. It is slightly ironic that bing is the best thing that's happened to google in a decade. Where it not for Balmer deciding to play search engine, google would be known to be a 95+% monopoly in the US as well. Bing allows them to pretend they aren't (though on my blog, for example, 99.28% of ~7k search referral visitors comes from google.)
  - 11y ago
rndn 11y ago
Machine learning is not heavily used in Google search: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-machine-learning-used-heavily-for-Googles-ad-ranking-and-less-for-their-search-ranking https://www.quora.com/Why-is-machine-learning-used-heavily-f...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- skj 11y ago
  In general, "search" or "optimization" is what we call machine learning that we've gotten pretty good at.

by paul 11y ago

DavidSJ 11y ago

If Google actually had the algorithm for a cat, I'd like to see them release that too.

stretchwithme 11y ago
Its freely available. A copy can be found in every cell of every cat.
- ehmmm 11y ago
  Algorithm is not the same as the the source code, which is what genes contain. We have obtained them trough gene sequencing, but we still don't know how organisms work and grow.
compbio 11y ago
They have: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/using-large-scale-brain-simulations-for.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/using-large-scale-bra... Furthermore they already published their search engine algorithm: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

jfoster 11y ago

Plus those factors and their weightings would be changing on a very regular basis. Then there's also the personalization and localization layers of search. Would each user be able to see the weightings specific to them, or would Google just publish the general algorithm with weightings left unspecified? Another open question is what degree of disclosure is being requested from Google. Suppose Google just give them the daily dump of weightings and such from the machine learning systems. Does that qualify as disclosure? They may have a hell of a time trying to figure out whether there is any bias in the system using that. They may just refuse to believe how complex the system is, and think that Google is being difficult.

gress 11y ago

They clearly don't understand the complexity, but just because it's complex doesn't mean it's not biased, and if nobody is allowed to audit it, we will never know.

wyager 11y ago
So? Why isn't Google allowed to make a biased search algorithm? And again, you might as well be saying "just because cats are complex doesn't mean they're not biased, and if nobody's allowed to audit them, we will never know". Even Google probably doesn't know the specifics of what their engine has learned.
- untog 11y ago
  The central issue here is whether Google are biased towards their own services, and as such abusing their market position. The rest of the bias doesn't matter.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    The former doesn't imply the latter. Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. That's not an example of biased search results; that's useful integration. And I can't see any possible reason why Google should be forced to make the same integration possible with MapQuest.
    - mercurial 11y ago
      > Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. It's also useful to open a link from Word. Do you see any reason why Microsoft should make it possible to open it in anything else than IE? The way the game works is that you can get away with vertical integration and anti-competitive behaviour as long as you are not in a situation of monopoly. Then the rules change.

Brakenshire 11y ago

Unfortunately the generation of politicians that are currently in power are by default tech-illiterate - there will be some who really know what they're talking about, but they will be those people who have needed to actively pick up that information. In general I would not bet on a randomly selected politician being able to describe what a browser is. It's a shame, because well-judged monopolies action is valuable. You can see the potential in the way that the standardization on USB has been nudged and cajoled on tablets, e-reader, phones, and tablets.

paulsutter 11y ago

It's convenient to think our work is so sophisticated, and that lawmakers are simpletons. But that's a naive view. They want the algorithm disclosed as a legal matter to determine whether competitors are disadvantaged. Which probably means they are more interested in email than source code. There exist hyperintelligent lawyers. Yes, smart enough to understand search. A law firm like Keker and Van Nest [1] could go in there and answer the question. France could be willing to spend a billion to find out, and that's more than they need. Legislation of technology is frightening to any technologist. But it's much more dangerous if we dismiss the process as ridiculous and refuse to recognize any underlying concerns. Because then technologists won't have any say in the outcome. [1] http://www.kvn.com/ http://www.kvn.com/ EDIT: Paul you're such a prominent guy, I don't mean to speak too strongly, but people really listen to what you say. Entrepreneurs ought to know that legal matters are not so easily dismissed. I do hope, generously speaking, the startups are the ones that call KVN and not the legislators.

x0x0 11y ago
Google has (very effectively) played the "oh noes, it's all machine learning" card. But machine learning is nothing more than codified human judgement (yes, I get that for example the conditional expectation minimizes the expected squared error, but who picked the expected squared error to minimize?) The point is, they wish the ranking algorithm to be seen as some divine choice and hence not subject to criticism rather than a mathematical extension of human choices. So has google put a finger on the scale to rank google properties more highly? Based on their behavior with the results page (vs yelp, for example), I would be surprised if they do, but not very surprised. Nonetheless, now that google search results are the internet for many people -- and chrome's address bar is used to help blur that distinction -- it's fair that people outside google, represented by governments, start having a say in who shows up and where. That's what happens when you're a monopoly. It is slightly ironic that bing is the best thing that's happened to google in a decade. Where it not for Balmer deciding to play search engine, google would be known to be a 95+% monopoly in the US as well. Bing allows them to pretend they aren't (though on my blog, for example, 99.28% of ~7k search referral visitors comes from google.)
- 11y ago

rndn 11y ago

Machine learning is not heavily used in Google search: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-machine-learning-used-heavily-for-Googles-ad-ranking-and-less-for-their-search-ranking https://www.quora.com/Why-is-machine-learning-used-heavily-f...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
skj 11y ago
In general, "search" or "optimization" is what we call machine learning that we've gotten pretty good at.