The negativity here is saddening. So what if it is for PR? How many other companies are doing these things even for that? Isn't it eventually promoting AI projects that have at least some social good in their objectives?
Given Google is already doing surreptitious stuff and is generally anti-privacy, it ought to look at stop doing those first. Stealing from people and doing "good" with that is not an excuse for stealing, especially when most of the victims are common folk (even if one follows a Robin Hood principle).
Also, I didn't get the part about Google "collecting anonymized data". Google collects precise, personally identifiable data because that's what pays the bills for its chosen business model (similar to Facebook, which is far worse). Anonymization may happen down the line for certain purposes and anonymized data may be all that Google is able to get from certain sources.
"The defendant is already doing that (committing crimes), wouldn't it be better if we permitted them to continue doing so as long as they're putting a portion of their spoils to good use?"
And don't forget to pat them on the back for their community service.
Even that is a very generous analogy, as it assumes that Google's AI contest will actually result in outcomes that produce some social benefit, rather than a few temporary initiatives that look good, provide near-zero real benefit to society, and really provide Google with technical AI innovations that are of some small use to their business.
You may not consider collecting "anonymised" data to be a bad thing, but you'll note that you inexplicably introduced the "anonymised" descriptor twisting the original commenter's "sensitive data"!?
Just like how other people complain about their job interviewing process, there was no response from any of their team members, no email, no rejection. I know ideas are dime a dozen but please don't stomp on startup's dreams no matter how tiny we are.
If somebody known to kidnap dogs opened a free doggy daycare service, I would expect people to question his motives.
By doing this, I suspect Google will get access to a significant number of social datasets which were earlier not available to it.
- Major producer of DDT. Evidence that DDT was causing widespread environmental damage was clear by the 1960s but it took the US government until the 1970s to finally ban it. Then the industry sued the US government to try to overturn the ban. Who tries to continue selling a product that has caused widespread environmental damage?
- Producer of Agent Orange. Another "perfectly safe" chemical. Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems as a result of Agent Orange contamination. I'm not sure how many US veterans were affected.
- Major producer of PCBs. Which are later banned due to being highly environmentally toxic, cause cancer in animals and probably humans too.
- Producer of bovine growth hormone, another "perfectly safe chemical". rBST has not been allowed since at least 2000 on the market in Canada, or since 1990 the European Union. Other countries have banned it. I don't think the studies on how it might affect humans are conclusive but there are concerns. For sure the studies on how it can negatively affect cows are more solid.
- They have been convicted of bribery in order to get government approval.
At what point do you stop trusting? And again, I don't mean the science and GMOs themselves. I mean the company who is making claims that GMOs are perfectly safe for both humans and the environment. Scientists are not so bold. Read the studies to see disclaimers and healthy doubt in those studies. Usually specifically spelled out. Disclaimers and doubts that are never mentioned by Monsanto when they publicly speak about their products. If they started being far more careful with their "perfectly safe" rhetoric, I might change my mind about them. So far, that hasn't happened.
I can't say if on the whole Monsanto has been somewhat responsible and well-behaved as a company. But I can say that based on just the list above, I would be very hesitant to trust any claims they make about the safety of any agricultural product, especially those involving chemicals.
I'm sure that someone can / will come in with a defense of Monsanto or arguments about each point above. The devil surely is in the details. But who has time to sort through hundreds of studies and court cases? Fair or not, we will continue using heuristics to decide who we trust. Maybe Facebook does in fact treat my data ethically and each time they get caught with privacy concerns or taken to court it was "just an honest mistake". Are you willing to spend tens or hundreds of hours of your free time trying to figure that out? Or will you use a heuristic and just be cautious with trusting what Facebook will do with your data?
... oh, I misread your question; I thought you asked "How did the food / GMO industry save the world?"
It’s not negativity to have been conscious and capable of forming long-term memories for the past decade, sorry. I’m also wondering if you have now or previously had any relationship with Google?
My experience of Google is that they excel at marketing their own supposed best intentions while delivering the worst of them.
>> My personal experience has actually been quite opposite. I think had they been marketing their services properly (and not just to geeks) they'd have been at a much better place than they are today. I think Apple is a world class standard when it comes to marketing.