Comment by veidr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by veidr | Hacker News Reader

    “We, and I personally, believe
    very strongly that more information
    is better, even if it’s wrong,” 
    said Eric Schmidt, executive
    chairman of Google[1]

I am reminded of this quote over and over when I encounter those things that are (TIL) absurdly called "knowledge panels". They often confidently present completely wrong information about even trivial things (like the weight of a specific camera or lens).

It is distressing (but not really surprising) to hear they are having disastrous consequences about more complex and obviously ambiguous queries, queries that no so-called "AI" should ever be answering, without a prominent disclaimer that the information was generated by a fuzzy-logic computer program without the ability to actually comprehend the topic at hand, and that therefore the information may be completely and utterly incorrect. (Such a disclaimer would obviously destory this "feature", though.)

I've always charitably assumed that Schmidt was trying to make some point that is less insane than the quote first sounds, like "correct information will eventually triumph over incorrect information if you just give people all the 'information' you can". But Google increasingly offers me information in ways that seem like he and they just, like, literally meant that quote as it reads.

(Also, even if that was the point he was trying to make, it's been thoroughly disproven over the past several years.)

[1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/17/google-eric-schmidt-cyb...

I wonder if it'll ever hit too close to home for Schmidt. https://imgur.com/a/Al7V662

(I guess that in his position it's pretty easy to point out this is news concerning another person.. good luck if you're a random nobody)

Honestly, I think he's right. (Disclaimer: I work for Google. Not on Search or anything closely related.)

Anyone who uses Google Search often knows that the results you get are generally right... 95% of the time or so. Even if they tried their damndest, they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near 100% correct. In fact, CGP Grey made the point in several of his YouTube videos and podcasts that even peer-reviewed, accepted papers and history books are sometimes wrong or based on flimsy evidence.

What Google search results tell me are what beliefs there are in the world. Many times you'll get multiple results (e.g. multiple pictures of different people under Image Search).

Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical - I want to buy this lady's book. Does it really matter what she looks like? - and when it is, I know that sometimes Google is wrong and depending on how much it matters, I double-check with other sources.

> Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical

You heard it here first, folks.

edit: (added because it's now hard to read above)

> I work for Google.

Okay, you got me. I accept the downvotes. You've missed the point and taken it out of context, but I made it way too easy for you.

So I'll rephrase: In the context of accomplishing a certain task, the accuracy of some information is crucial and the accuracy of other information is not. For instance, if I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience, I care that she's a woman, that she lives in a western country similar to my own. It doesn't particularly matter to me, in this context, what she looks like, so if I see the wrong photo - it's no big deal.

Obviously, the truth matters. And Google can't know what context you care about. But the only way to never be wrong is to never show anything at all. In other words, if you try to be useful and aggregate and show any information at all, you're going to be wrong here and there.

Yes, Google should continue working and improving and getting to as high an accuracy as possible, but it's never going to be 100%.

In that case, the information itself isn't important either. If it's wrong and it doesn't matter, why is it even being displayed? By definition then, the only people wrong information matters to are the ones it affects. "It's no big deal" to you, but she has been working for years to get this fixed.

> the only way to never be wrong is to never show anything at all.

How much error does this excuse? Any amount? How's this even helpful if you don't draw that line?

And it absolutely doesn't justify a lack of recourse when it does go wrong.

> You've missed the point and taken it out of context

1. I find the original quote, at least as presented without additional context, pretty difficult to see as anything but nonsensical. You following it up with "Honestly, I think he's right" and "Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical" is leaning into the same nonsensical position even if you try to cover it with additional context of, well actually there's still useful information.

2. This post is specifically about a woman (or in fact several) who have been harmed from this notion of truth not being critical. And you're doubling down on this with a not so relevant view centered around how it's benefiting you and not about the collateral damage. No one is saying perfect information is possible, but in the very least Google needs to be responsible for negatively affecting people's lives and it needs to provide an easy and reliable way to address situations like this.

> So I'll rephrase: In the context of accomplishing a certain task, the accuracy of some information is crucial and the accuracy of other information is not. For instance, if I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience, I care that she's a woman, that she lives in a western country similar to my own. It doesn't particularly matter to me, in this context, what she looks like, so if I see the wrong photo - it's no big deal.

This is a cherry-picked task. If we switch the task from "I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience" to "I'm looking to know more about Andrea, including what she looks like" then the Google response is worse than an irrelevant one: it is a definitely wrong answer.

And our new task isn't something unlikely or fanciful: there are surely people who have read her book who want to know more about her and who might google her.

Google will surely remove this as they should.

It's no big deal to you. It's a big deal to the person who's life was just ruined!

> For instance, if I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience, I care that she's a woman, that she lives in a western country similar to my own. It doesn't particularly matter to me, in this context, what she looks like, so if I see the wrong photo - it's no big deal.

And yet here we are in a thread about a woman whose life is being very negatively impacted by the misinformation.

> In the context of accomplishing a certain task, the accuracy of some information is crucial and the accuracy of other information is not. For instance, if I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience, I care that...

This totally disregards that many people search for stuff without any specific "task" in mind at all, and even more so that in controversial contexts like this, probably quite a lot of people with the explicit intent not to contribute to the author's happiness or cash box.

> Yes, Google should continue working and improving and getting to as high an accuracy as possible, but it's never going to be 100%.

What Google desperately needs to work and improve on, far more than mere accuracy, is some goddarn freaking humility: When you know you're not 100% sure to be presenting accurate results, stop pompously calling them "knowledge".

Try, for a change, not to be evil.

Well if even the average Google employee has that opinion then we truly are doomed.

Its no wonder we've got ourselves in this mess when we allow people with those kind of opinions to run a search and marketing company.

Ok, I'll repeat.

The truth matters. It matters ten times more when you're Google, where many, many people go to get answers for questions, and it's a deep abuse of trust when Google shows lies.

I phrased my opinion badly, and I was wrong to do so. Mea culpa.

Also, I'm a lowly engineer. I don't manage anyone, and I don't "run" anything, except, you know, unit tests on my machine and stuff.

You write code that runs in that ecosystem. If it makes you feel better then convince yourself you're not responsible.

Doesnt make it any less bullshit.

Most people don't have or use their critical thinking skills the way you seem to expect them to.

It's a delicate balance - between being useful and being accurate - and it's very possible Google is wrong here. I don't know what the correct threshold is, or indeed that there exists a correct, globally applicable one.

Let me edit that for you slightly:

> Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical - I want to harass the author of this book. Does it really matter what she looks like?

Yes. Yes, it does matter. Falsely identifying the author after she has repeatedly tried to get it corrected, which has resulted in unrelated people being "attacked" (their words) is an unmitigated ill.

I'd rather a pastor get harassed than the rape victim. The pastor had the emotional distance and support network to push back.

The author of the book and OP of this thread obviously feels differently, and I'd gently suggest that her feelings are much more important than yours in this matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com