Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the products were harmful, but their results were squelched. “Do no harm,” indeed.
My physics teacher worked for some kind of government air pollution modelling group in the past, and effectively said that they would often be told "Here's the result, find us data to make it work".
- Sir Humphrey
The phrase was only moved from the introduction to the conclusion of the code of conduct, never removed.
> Google prohibits retaliation against any worker here at Google who reports or participates in an investigation of a possible violation of our Code, policies, or the law. If you believe you are being retaliated against, please contact Ethics & Compliance.
Well, it is safe to say this is hot garbage then.
I would love Google to remove all the self entitled BS from this statement, so they can act as an everyday faceless big company which is anyway what it is doing, not some moral beacon for the mass to look up to.
The statement exists only to generate traffic for the news outlet for spinning.
So the statement that it’s really not a slogan anymore is quite true from my experience.
"The erudite Faust is highly successful yet dissatisfied with his life, which leads him to make a pact with the Devil at a crossroads, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge and worldly [power]."
It’s like if an asbestos company did a bunch of research on healthy insulators, then found that the original products were in fact harmful. Before publishing it, the bosses demand mention of the prior work towards healthy insulators.
These are not equivalent comparisons to me. Tobacco was always harmful, inhaling smoke in general is just bad, and the others could be through improper use but safe otherwise. Let alone all of what you mentioned will not have the impact AI will
AI's potential is equally good and equally bad and any of the bad is purely because someone or some group employs it that way.
The real danger of AI isn't the obvious tinpot dictators using it drive war but in politicians and government officials hiding behind the term as an excuse for their bad decisions. The more you demand of your government to give you stuff or services the more likely you will be subject to this tech
I say this each time the subject of AI abuse, facial recognition or similar comes up.
This is not something that cancel culture will stop. Nothing is going to stop it from coming. So the best alternative to the technically and morally (hate using that word) driven people is to hit it head on from all directions. This means working to make sure it does what it is supposed to do but also that everyone knows what it really cannot do, working the legal end to insure there are laws and consequences for employing the technology incorrectly, and through the information end in keeping the public fully aware of who is using, how they use it, and how to legally protect yourself from it.
Well, yes, and in this case that someone appears to be Google, which is why people are complaining about them making AI decisions.