6 ms·

Eh. This article emphasizes the wrong things. Larry Page isn't some super villain building robot armies to take over the world. Any significant harm he/Google m

by nmrm 12y ago

Eh. This article emphasizes the wrong things. Larry Page isn't some super villain building robot armies to take over the world. Any significant harm he/Google might do to the world will likely be via the unintended consequences of actions motivated primarily by profit. We already see this -- the slow erosion of privacy expectations, etc. As for all of the internet of things/robotics acquisitions and R&D... well, I'm not in the board room during these discussions, but I highly doubt that building robotic armies is on anyone's mind. More likely, Page et al. see this as a next major growth area and would like to stay ahead of the curve. Esp. the Boston Dynamics acquisition is probably less about military applications than general experience with complicated robots.

maddev 12y ago
> the slow erosion of privacy expectations, etc. > slow SLOW?????? More like super-sonic.
- nmrm 12y ago
  Maybe gradual would've been a more appropriate word. The point is it happened piecemeal over 15 or so years, rather than all at once.
  - hydroxylGroup 12y ago
    I would say it started in 2004 and completed by 2009. In 2004, social networking websites came to prominence. By 2009, social networking had been implicitly integrated into smart phones that had been unleashed upon the world, and peer pressure (among youth in particular) and dark patterns of usability were coercing or subverting any natural tendencies to participate in geolocation and facial recognition research and development.
unclebucknasty 12y ago
>This article emphasizes the wrong things. Larry Page isn't some super villain building robot armies to take over the world. The article doesn't say that. The author just lays out the facts, then concludes by stating that he is not saying that Page will abuse his power, but simply that he could. >I highly doubt that building robotic armies is on anyone's mind. On what basis do you doubt this? Because it's unpleasant to imagine? Hard to believe? Regardless, the point of the article (and indeed, the very title) is that we have placed a lot of power into one man's hands. Perhaps we should consider the potential consequences (intended or not), and whether simply "doubting" that this power will be abused is sufficient.
- nmrm 12y ago
  > The author just lays out the facts, then concludes by stating that he is not saying that Page will abuse his power, but simply that he could. Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.) You don't need to resort to conspiracy in order to isolate real ways in which Google has having large -- arguably negative -- impacts on our everyday lives. > On what basis do you doubt this? Mostly motive. Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army. But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories I missed the conspiracy theory in the article. Can you point it out? Again, it appeared to be a series of facts illustrating the power of Google/Page and a rational question: Do these facts represent the concentration of too much power in one man's hands? >distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.) Why can't it be both-and vs. either-or? Sure, the privacy issue is clear-and-present. But, keep in mind that when Google first started, we were just happy to have such a powerful search-engine. Perhaps it would have been a "nutty conspiracy theory" then to worry about your privacy. After all, why would Google abuse their access to your data when "Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from"... abusing its customers' trust? What seems most counter-intuitive, however, is that you don't trust them with your data, but you trust them with, say, launching satellites and wielding combat-robot technology. I'm not being facetious when I say that it's honestly kind of hard to find the line with you. >Mostly motive. Pretty amazing that you think you know Page's motives. Actually, scratch that: we can all surmise. What's amazing is that you're so certain. Regardless, even with the "purest" motives, it's worth considering whether so much power can lead to unintended consequences. >* Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army.* Nor does it from abusing your privacy. Or does it? >But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes. Apparently, not. The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did.
gress 12y ago
Being motivated 'purely by profit' means that you are deliberately acting without morals. That isn't an unintended consequence. It is an intended consequence of pretending you aren't responsible for your actions.
- hsod 12y ago
  Was the parent post edited? Right now it says "motivated primarily by profit," not "purely"
  - nmrm 12y ago
    No, I didn't edit that post. Also, gress: I don't necessarily disagree with you. But there is a distinction.
    - gress 12y ago
      There is a distinction, but I think that primarily does imply that profit takes priority over ethical concerns, so I'd argue that in this case the distinction doesn't change the argument.

by nmrm 12y ago

maddev 12y ago

> the slow erosion of privacy expectations, etc. > slow SLOW?????? More like super-sonic.

nmrm 12y ago
Maybe gradual would've been a more appropriate word. The point is it happened piecemeal over 15 or so years, rather than all at once.
- hydroxylGroup 12y ago
  I would say it started in 2004 and completed by 2009. In 2004, social networking websites came to prominence. By 2009, social networking had been implicitly integrated into smart phones that had been unleashed upon the world, and peer pressure (among youth in particular) and dark patterns of usability were coercing or subverting any natural tendencies to participate in geolocation and facial recognition research and development.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

>This article emphasizes the wrong things. Larry Page isn't some super villain building robot armies to take over the world. The article doesn't say that. The author just lays out the facts, then concludes by stating that he is not saying that Page will abuse his power, but simply that he could. >I highly doubt that building robotic armies is on anyone's mind. On what basis do you doubt this? Because it's unpleasant to imagine? Hard to believe? Regardless, the point of the article (and indeed, the very title) is that we have placed a lot of power into one man's hands. Perhaps we should consider the potential consequences (intended or not), and whether simply "doubting" that this power will be abused is sufficient.

nmrm 12y ago
> The author just lays out the facts, then concludes by stating that he is not saying that Page will abuse his power, but simply that he could. Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.) You don't need to resort to conspiracy in order to isolate real ways in which Google has having large -- arguably negative -- impacts on our everyday lives. > On what basis do you doubt this? Mostly motive. Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army. But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories I missed the conspiracy theory in the article. Can you point it out? Again, it appeared to be a series of facts illustrating the power of Google/Page and a rational question: Do these facts represent the concentration of too much power in one man's hands? >distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.) Why can't it be both-and vs. either-or? Sure, the privacy issue is clear-and-present. But, keep in mind that when Google first started, we were just happy to have such a powerful search-engine. Perhaps it would have been a "nutty conspiracy theory" then to worry about your privacy. After all, why would Google abuse their access to your data when "Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from"... abusing its customers' trust? What seems most counter-intuitive, however, is that you don't trust them with your data, but you trust them with, say, launching satellites and wielding combat-robot technology. I'm not being facetious when I say that it's honestly kind of hard to find the line with you. >Mostly motive. Pretty amazing that you think you know Page's motives. Actually, scratch that: we can all surmise. What's amazing is that you're so certain. Regardless, even with the "purest" motives, it's worth considering whether so much power can lead to unintended consequences. >* Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army.* Nor does it from abusing your privacy. Or does it? >But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes. Apparently, not. The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did.

gress 12y ago

Being motivated 'purely by profit' means that you are deliberately acting without morals. That isn't an unintended consequence. It is an intended consequence of pretending you aren't responsible for your actions.

hsod 12y ago
Was the parent post edited? Right now it says "motivated primarily by profit," not "purely"
- nmrm 12y ago
  No, I didn't edit that post. Also, gress: I don't necessarily disagree with you. But there is a distinction.
  - gress 12y ago
    There is a distinction, but I think that primarily does imply that profit takes priority over ethical concerns, so I'd argue that in this case the distinction doesn't change the argument.