Inside Google's Mysterious Ethics Board(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Inside Google's Mysterious Ethics Board
http://www.forbes.com/sites/privacynotice/2014/02/03/inside-googles-mysterious-ethics-board/
11 コメント
The problem stems from "Forbes Contributor" system
"It’s a simple deal: there is a flat monthly fee, a bonus for hitting certain unique visitor targets, and a fee per unique user after bonus targets are achieved. For paid contributors, the arrangement requires a certain number of posts per month and a specified level of audience engagement through our commenting system."
With a setup like that, of course it's ideal to push sensationalist articles that will stir up controversy/comments even if it's fabricated. We saw a ton of this in eSports with a particular Forbes contributor milking the communities "OMG WE'RE ON FORBES" attitude for 30+ articles.
They're not the only major outlet using a similar content farming system, and I can't really blame anyone for their moves in this situation. Sensationalist Misinformation > Meaningful Editorial Content online and it's been that way for a long time.
"It’s a simple deal: there is a flat monthly fee, a bonus for hitting certain unique visitor targets, and a fee per unique user after bonus targets are achieved. For paid contributors, the arrangement requires a certain number of posts per month and a specified level of audience engagement through our commenting system."
With a setup like that, of course it's ideal to push sensationalist articles that will stir up controversy/comments even if it's fabricated. We saw a ton of this in eSports with a particular Forbes contributor milking the communities "OMG WE'RE ON FORBES" attitude for 30+ articles.
They're not the only major outlet using a similar content farming system, and I can't really blame anyone for their moves in this situation. Sensationalist Misinformation > Meaningful Editorial Content online and it's been that way for a long time.
How about getting rid of the bonuses and just mandate a certain number of posts per month, with support for reporting posts filled with garbage for example?
[deleted]
It reads as though the authors are trying to get hired.
I've continued to become increasingly uncomfortable with Google's opaqueness.
Just the other day, I went to adjust Dad's advanced settings in Chrome, because they are now using Google Cloud Print. That was actually connected to their non-cloud-ready printer using Mom's Google/Gmail account.
But when I tried to go in the check and adjust settings, Chrome itself -- not the Google web-based interface to Cloud Print -- prompted for renewed sign in, even though I'd just signed into the web property as Mom. When I attempted to use her ID to do this for the Chrome browser, I received a message back that the last/previous such authentication had occurred under Dad's Google ID.
Despite the face that, the other week, I set up this Cloud Print-ing nonsense using Mom's ID.
And... no links to documentation. Just this sudden sort of "fuck you" opaque messaging.
And all this... because their very reliable wireless network printing to their Brother 2170W printer has stopped working, and I was trying to investigate whether this Cloud Print functionality and the Windows service or whatever that it can and did apparently drop as an option to support printing when not signed into one's Google account on the Windows PC supporting and driving the non-Cloud-Print-ready printer, whether that might be getting in the way of the normal, non-Cloud-Print wireless/network printing.
Argh!
By the way, the printer did start printing just fine, once I had Dad connect it with a USB cable. So, it is basically working. I suspect this Cloud Printing nonsense. (Set up so Mom can print from her new Samsung Android tablet.)
Troubleshooting it -- especially if they want to continue using it while also being able to use normal wireless/network printing? Not looking forward to that, so much.
Add in everyone else's "Google does this (or doesn't) and refuses to communicate on it nor actively support it" story, and...
You are becoming your own version of Microsoft, Google. Except... for a while, with Microsoft, if you paid, you actually got support.
Just the other day, I went to adjust Dad's advanced settings in Chrome, because they are now using Google Cloud Print. That was actually connected to their non-cloud-ready printer using Mom's Google/Gmail account.
But when I tried to go in the check and adjust settings, Chrome itself -- not the Google web-based interface to Cloud Print -- prompted for renewed sign in, even though I'd just signed into the web property as Mom. When I attempted to use her ID to do this for the Chrome browser, I received a message back that the last/previous such authentication had occurred under Dad's Google ID.
Despite the face that, the other week, I set up this Cloud Print-ing nonsense using Mom's ID.
And... no links to documentation. Just this sudden sort of "fuck you" opaque messaging.
And all this... because their very reliable wireless network printing to their Brother 2170W printer has stopped working, and I was trying to investigate whether this Cloud Print functionality and the Windows service or whatever that it can and did apparently drop as an option to support printing when not signed into one's Google account on the Windows PC supporting and driving the non-Cloud-Print-ready printer, whether that might be getting in the way of the normal, non-Cloud-Print wireless/network printing.
Argh!
By the way, the printer did start printing just fine, once I had Dad connect it with a USB cable. So, it is basically working. I suspect this Cloud Printing nonsense. (Set up so Mom can print from her new Samsung Android tablet.)
Troubleshooting it -- especially if they want to continue using it while also being able to use normal wireless/network printing? Not looking forward to that, so much.
Add in everyone else's "Google does this (or doesn't) and refuses to communicate on it nor actively support it" story, and...
You are becoming your own version of Microsoft, Google. Except... for a while, with Microsoft, if you paid, you actually got support.
"Is Google building an unstoppable robot army powered by AI?… Whatever the answer, we don’t want to feed the rumor mill here."
Uh... you just did. #FAIL
Uh... you just did. #FAIL
I've always found that Betteridge's Law of Headlines is an excellent first (but not 100% accurate) measure for early-warning of link and 'content' farms.
> Right now, AI controls airplanes, stock markets, information searches, surveillance programs, and more
...are they correct? I can't really imagine anyone sticking existing AI implementations in aircraft. Or do they have a looser definition of AI?
...are they correct? I can't really imagine anyone sticking existing AI implementations in aircraft. Or do they have a looser definition of AI?
This article uses a very loose definition of AI.
He doesn't mention Kurzweil once. #fail
The title of this post makes reference to an existing ethics board at Google, and then the third paragraph, without mentioning anything about an ethics board besides the title, references the ethics board the DeepMind would like to create at Google without any other contexts.
I think I'm done with Forbes. What a piece of trash article.