Slashdot Mirror
Google Quietly Disbanded Another AI Review Board Following Disagreements (wsj.com)
Google is disbanding a panel in London to review its artificial-intelligence work in health care, WSJ reported Monday, as disagreements about its effectiveness dogged one of the tech industry's highest-profile efforts to govern itself. From a report: The Alphabet unit is struggling with how best to set guidelines for its sometimes-sensitive work in AI -- the ability for computers to replicate tasks that only humans could do in the past. It also highlights the challenges Silicon Valley faces in setting up self-governance systems as governments around the world scrutinize issues ranging from privacy and consent to the growing influence of social media and screen addiction among children. AI has recently become a target in that stepped-up push for oversight as some sensitive decision-making -- including employee recruitment, health-care diagnoses and law-enforcement profiling -- is increasingly being outsourced to algorithms. The European Commission is proposing a set of AI ethical guidelines and researchers have urged companies to adopt similar rules. But industry efforts to conduct such oversight in-house have been mixed. Further reading: Google Cancels AI Ethics Board In Response To Outcry.
Killed by political correctness or SJWs?
The start, middle and end of Googles problems is keeping activists in their ranks.
Instead, let's trust a violently imposed monopoly to do the regulating, eh?
Simply say they are doing it, anyone who doesn't like it can get the fuck out, and move on.
Sorry, but why would we trust multi-billion dollar companies to self regulate, when their clear goal is maximizing profits and getting as much of your data as possible.
I wouldn't trust any company to self regulate, let alone anything like Google or Facebook who have demonstrated time and time again they don't care about your privacy.
We need to be regulating them, not just trusting they'll do the right thing ... because we know they won't.
The Episcopalian Religion is straight out of the pits of hell. They teach that performing the seven sacraments are absolutely essential to go to heaven. This is the same damnable heresy which Roman Catholicism teaches. END
About the Satanic Episcopal Church...
Official Website - www.ecusa.anglican.org
Statistics - The Episcopal Church is the American Counterpart of the Church of England or Anglican Church of England. There are 75 million worldwide and 2.3 million in the USA, with the Episcopal Church being formed in America in 1789 in Philadelphia. Membership is on the decline, with a 28% since 1965. Headquarters in America is in New York for the Episcopal Church.
Background and Formation
This church was formed in 1534 when it broke away from the Anglican Church over the matter of a king who wanted to divorce his wife and the pope wouldn't let him! . As church historian A. A. Davis notes - âoeThere does not seem to have been any doctrinal matter involved at all when the Church of England was born.
Luther objected to the doctrines and the practices of Rome, but the Church of England seems to have come about purely by accident. King Henry VIII of England had become dissatisfied with one of his wives, and incidentally he only had six of them.
I learned a little ditty many years ago concerning the fate of the wives of Henry VIII. It went like this âoeDivorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.â He divorced the first one; he beheaded the second one; the third one was fortunate to die a natural death; the fourth one he divorced; the fifth one he beheaded; but, the sixth one outlived him. He had fallen in love with beautiful Anne Boleyn. He wanted a divorce from Katherine.
The pope claimed the right, as he has until this day, as supreme authority in domestic affairs. When the prime minister chided the king regarding his desires, and the pope would not grant him a divorce, Thomas Cromwell said to him: âoeYou are the King of England . Why donâ(TM)t you just write a letter to the pope, and in your own way, tell him to go jump in the lake, then organize a church of your own; write yourself a bill of divorcement, go marry the woman of your choice.â He said it was a pretty good idea. That is just about what happened in history. He wanted another wife and he got her. And the world got another church. That is just as plain and blunt as I know how to put it.
There is not a historian of any reputation that will refute one statement that I have made. Now do not misunderstand me. There were no doctrinal matters involved at the time of the Church of Englandâ(TM)s birth, but after it was instituted, there were many good and needed reforms instituted. They threw overboard some of the most repulsive Catholic doctrines; the chief one was the celibacy of the priesthood. They do permit their ministers. They did away with the Catholic idea of purgatory and limbo; and in the main as a doctrine, did away with confessional policy. Though in some instances, they have sought to return it. But they brought with them from Rome, their mother church these same doctrines, infant baptism, and a state religion.â
It was the Church of England, under the enforcement of their laws, that imprisoned John Bunyan, kept him in jail for 12 long years, during which time he gave to the world that matchless piece of literature, âoeThe Pilgrimâ(TM)s Progress.â It was written by a Baptist preacher in Bedford prison. He was imprisoned not by the Catholics or the Lutherans, but imprisoned by the Church of England people because he preached against the baptism of infants. They offered him his freedom several different times if he would promise not to preach ag
The men with guns decree their income regardless of their poor performance.
If you disregard its connections to the men with guns, Google has gained its money through voluntary interaction—through convincing people to hand over their resources of their own volition.
So, what do you propose? Do you propose we trust the men with guns instead? Are these men with guns formed of finer clay than the rest of us? Who are these angels who would put others' interests before their own, even while holding a monopoly on violent imposition?
Your position is absurd.
When I read the first three words of that headline, I was shocked, until I read the rest.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
In fact, if those who vote for Democrats stopped shooting people, then gun violence would drop by like 90%.
Sorry, but why would we trust multi-billion dollar companies to self regulate
Because if they do not they die, or are punished rather badly.
their clear goal is maximizing profits
Here's the problem with being afraid of that - you have no idea what that actually means. In fact, even GOOGLE does not know what that really means.
No-one knows what actions would truly "maximize profits". Certainly not the people outside the company's top execs who have no inkling of the roadmap for the company, and very little ability to understand what will even be possible in five years or longer. But for those inside the company, even then actions are just an educated guess.
So companies may be trying to "maximize profits" but since there is no one sure way to do so, instead what they are really doing is trying to follow a mission statement to move a company forward toward one or more end goals. Often those goals can have some altruistic purpose to help people, alongside the goal to help the company.
getting as much of your data as possible.
Some but not all, Google for sure this is indeed true of.
We need to be regulating them
Oh so you'd like the citation much worse? You'd like all other companies to end up like pharmaceutical companies, the most heavily regulated industry there is?
The problem with using regulation as the only tool to shape company actions is that if a company is large enough it can easily control the regulations that supposedly control them. Then not only can they do what they like without worry about government, but they use regulations as a tool to ensure competitors cannot function well, thereby removing the only real force that actually changes company behavior - market pressure. If you can't have some small company come up and compete against you, a company will do what it likes forever - the more regulation the better.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are 2 ways to view this situation:
* Google has been fraudulent, and yet no government has prosecuted them for it.
* Perhaps, maybe, in a free society, caveat emptor renders their deceptive practices the fault of the unwitting consumers; society would perhaps be better off if, culturally, people were expected to be skeptical, and thus to spend their own resources more wisely on service providers who do more to prove the real nature of their services.
Either way, the solution is clear: There must be a more robust system of contract negotiation/enforcement; there is a lack of well defined behavior.
" They see people almost being denied a supreme court seat because they once had a beer while in school." - No, he perjured himself under oath. It's not the beer, you lying faggot. IT'S THE LYING, YOU LYING FAGGOT.
YOU TELL A LIE UNDER OATH AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. That he basically ATTEMPTED TO RAPE A CLASSMATE also didn't really rise to the occasion of a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS without investigation.
But with TRAITOR SUPPORTING DISHONEST FAGGOTS LIKE YOURSELF in charge? He sailed right through anyway, to lie another day.
Dry your eyes, traitor. Your little perjurer didn't get caught - yet!
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13577626&cid=58274188
# Make sure each board member has the same (Google compatible) views on AI.
for MEMBER in ${CLOWN_PARADE}
do
MEMBER_OK="$(check_for_compliance ${MEMBER})"
if [ MEMBER_OK == true ]
then
continue
else
generate_bogus_excuse
hide_behind_sjw_outrage
fi
done
# Resume normal operation
if [ true ]; then profit; fi
We all know it's you harassing SuperKendall, raymorris, and ShanghaiBill. You've been doing it for months and you clearly have nothing better to do with your life. You might actually be a security expert if you didn't spend so much of your life acting like a total loser and stalking people.
E tot E `SEC . LIEUT on LIEUT . PLUMERY `APOLAR on LIEUT .
LO on E . E . E tot E `E tot E `E us are E tot E `E tot E `
E E . E . E . E us are E us are E us are E tot E `E us are
E `E `E . E . E `LEST `E `LEST `LIEUT on APOLAR on LIEUT .
E . E E . E . E tot E `E tot E `E us are E . E us are . E `
E on LO . E . E tot E `E tot E `E us are E on E . E tot E `
E tot E `SEC . LIEUT on LIEUT . PLUMERY `E tot E . LIEUT .
Look like goriller's
What does a gay AI wanting to get married have to do with this?
Infrastructure helps streamline the process. That is, for instance, why some of the dumbest people on the planet are still able to negotiate extremely complex transportation problems: Infrastructure.
"We didn't ask you if it was ok to do AI."
"We asked you to tell us how it's ok for us to use AI to enslave humanity!"
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You'll only get tyranny if you try to save someone from himself.
That's the problem here; you've [supposedly] identified a right that [according to you] most people are not willing to defend. Yet, in American philosophy, a government is meant to amplify the protection of rights that each person would already seek to implement for himself—each Person transfers to the Government his authority in some aspect of life, because the collective use of that authority is supposed to be superior to the individual use of that authority; the manifest lack of respect for one's own privacy weakens the case that privacy is a right the government should protect.
For the sake of liberty, it's better to leave this "right" in the hands of each individual; maybe privacy is actually a privilege; maybe privacy is actually a kind of capital that each individual must collect and protect on his own, and thus a one-size-fits-all policy enshrined in law (or indeed the Constitution itself) would be erroneous.
This is what happens when a significant majority of your workforce does not wish to hear any opposing viewpoints and actively punish anyone who does not toe the party line. They create a self-imposed echo chamber so that "all is well" in their tiny little world.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Careful not to oversimplify this. The bigger problem is incompetence in bureaucracies. This issue is going to crop up regardless whether there's an outside regulator. The downside to having an external regulating body is that in the case of incompetence-induced disaster, the company can shrug and say "well, we were just following best practices as defined by the National FOO Organization" and that's an argument that sometimes lets a company dodge charges of incompetence. It gets particularly bad when you have industry ex-leaders, former c-levels and former board members in charge of the regulating bodies (because they have "experience.")
I don't necessarily have a good answer here. The problem is instutionalized incompetence is something I could rant about for days (Feynman's appendix in Challenger Report is a good starting place.) I just don't think external regulation is going to solve the problem. If it gets more people looking at decisions and commenting on them I suppose that is an improvement because it can increase the odds that someone will pipe up, but I worry about it becoming a rubber stamping pass-the-buck mechanism that actually decreases responsibility.
In any case, in the U.S., which has the strongest cultural respect for free speech in the entire world, it is (as you know) only the case that the first amendment simply restricts the government from infringing on the right—the government doesn't protect free speech, but rather the founders have sought to protect free speech from government.
Indeed, you have to protect your right to free speech by exercising it, and the endless irritating that speech causes shows that many people are doing their damnedest to exercise it and therefore protect it.
"given how much less useful their search has become over the years"
This is one good thing about Google's descent into overt evil: it seems to have destroyed the company's ability to make good products. Google Search results have been getting less and less useful, and have really gone downhill fast in recent years. Likewise the new Fischer Price UI for Gmail is craptastic. Maps is still awesome - so I eagerly await the next version that ruins it too.
Google has always been a surveillance company, but they used to do a good job of pretending to be a product company. At one time the quality of their baitware was head & shoulders above competing, less-malicious software products.
Google has always had contempt for its users - it's unavoidable when their whole business model is based on stalking, snooping, and selling the details of people's private lives to repressive governments. When Google was still growing, they paid lip service to caring about their users. Now that Google has vast monopoly power, this lip service is no longer necessary. Big Brother Google is part of the totalitarian security state and you, the user, are nothing but a deplorable prole.
Google: Be Evil.
Fuck you, plebs, that's why!
EVERYONE KNOWS the gestapo has direct real time access to Big Brother Google's mass surveillance data.
Stop Google now, before it's too late!
By your own admission, a one-size-fits-all approach is inherently inadequate.