
A conversation with Google’s in-house philosopher - dredmorbius
http://qz.com/451051/should-search-algorithms-be-moral-a-conversation-with-googles-in-house-philosopher/
======
tikhonj
> _…to consider the knowledge it delivers as a basic, common necessity, and as
> such, one that requires a democratically-empowered quality control._

Knowledge determined by popular fiat. Sounds lovely.

I mean, even now, popularity determines what we get, but at least it's
implicit—results are based on how people _act_ , not how they _say they should
act_.

Unlike the article, I'm not willing to assume that the latter is better than
the former, much less that it should be forced on us. Then again, I'm the sort
of person who's content eating donuts and would hate being forced onto a kale
diet.

More importantly, the former provides a more granular system: different people
can get different things based on what they want or how they act. A democratic
system, on the other hand, would pretty much force a consensus on everyone.
Centralization simply doesn't have the capability to let everyone have their
own way.

~~~
eevilspock
> More importantly, the former provides a more granular system: different
> people can get different things based on what they want or how they act.

I disagree. The web is the way it is, flooded with click-bait, ads
masquerading as editorial, opinion and political agenda masquerading as
journalism, viral power masquerading as truth, because of the "free"[1] junk
food consuming habits that most people are prone too most of the time. This
utterly and fundamentally transforms the web for _everyone_ , because there is
little air left for alternatives to breathe, leaving them stunted if not
still-born. The same damage that the article explains as happening to
journalism is happening to all other important things on the web.

-

[1] That ads give us the web for free is utter bullshit:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237)

------
antisoph
I don't get it. It sounds as if he worships the Google algorithm as an
independant entity, and modifying it would be meddling. In reality Google
created that algorithm, so they already determine "truth". If bible stuff
really is what most people want to find, I understand the rationale to give it
to them. Is the situation in the US really that bad, though? Frankly, that
would be scarier than the Utopia of a search engine optimizing for truth...

~~~
dredmorbius
_Google created that algorithm, so they already determine "truth"._

Precisely.

------
hartator
> But one of the first search results when you Google “What happened to the
> dinosaurs?” is a website called Answers in Genesis. It explains that “the
> Bible gives us a framework for explaining dinosaurs [...] Luciano Floridi,
> known as “the Google Philosopher,” thinks that’s fine.

That's not fine, I feel that's just a poor quality result that can be
improved. Like maybe understanding why "Answers in Genesis" ranks surprisingly
high.

~~~
saalweachter
Yeah, but where do you draw the line? Efficacy of acupuncture? Causes leading
up the US Civil War? Government spending with a fiscal multiplier > 1? 1-based
indexing of arrays? Impact of H1-Bs on US salaries and immigrant-welfare?

You may find dinosaurs an unambiguous case, but some people (Creationists,
paleontologists) don't. Why should Google decide the truth on dinosaurs but
not on <insert sacred cow>?

~~~
dredmorbius
Two approaches on that.

For well-established, well-sourced, and particularly, _scientific_ questions,
authorities with a strong record of truthful and accurate accounts should both
get priority _and_ help establish truth models. Less-well-known sources which
genrally agree with these also score well.

Sites showing systematic bias or poor truth valance would be discounted.

Facts, ultimately, are verified by experiment or experience. In practice, we
look at _reported experiential results_ and note which tend to agree and/or
show errors which are both _small_ and _unbiased_.

Those are your preferred sources.

An interesting element about lairs is that they _frequently_ (though not
always ), tend to exhibit systemic bias _across multiple disciplines. Either
they bullshit and make stuff up (high error, unbiased), or they show systemic
biases.

Again, not always and uniformly, but frequently.

Truth _and* source reputation combined give you considerable leverage.

The goal isn't perfection, but reducing the problem to _tractable_ areas of
truth valance helps greatly.

------
adregan
When I search, all but 3 results are now news stories and blog posts about
googling "What happened to the dinosaurs." I don't find those results to be
particularly useful either.

~~~
ridiculous_fish
Searching for "What happened to the dinosaurs" returns in the answer box the
text "Google is Wrong About What Happened to the Dinosaurs", which is a cute
instance of the Liar's Paradox:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)

------
reiichiroh
So he's like Yahoo's Shiggy?

------
elektromekatron
I wonder what their out-house philosopher is like.

~~~
shostack
Aren't we all out-house philosophers?

~~~
elektromekatron
I suppose there is a reason they call it ruminating

------
baseballmerpeak
Don't be _too_ evil

------
nsns
Well, if he's "Google's", he's a sell out, by definition.

