Google says it will soon alter its Search tool to provide "diverse perspectives" where appropriate. The change will affect the boxed text that often appears at the top of results pages - known as a Snippet - which contains a response sourced from a third-party site. At present, Google provides only a single box but it will sometimes show multiple Snippets in the future. The change could help Google tackle claims it sometimes spreads lies. But one expert warned the move introduced fresh risks of its own.
The idea is to provide information that users want without them having to click through to another page. But it has been accused of providing "shockingly bad" information in some cases, including Snippets that suggested:
-women were evil
-the food additive monosodium glutamate caused brain damage
-anti-fascist campaigners held an overly simplistic view of the world
I'm not actually terribly worried by this. Who in their right mind is going to ask Google, "Should I join the Nazi party ?" and, if Google says, "Yes" actually goes and does it ? No-one. Only people who are literally not in their right mind would do that. What would be more worrying would be if pro-Nazi sites dominated the first page of search results, because that's what everyone relies on.
Snippets are a fundamentally bad idea for complex issues. They should be restricted to quantifiable measurements, not political issues except in extreme cases : "no, you should not join the Nazi party."
"Both Google and Facebook are trying to address claims that they played a part in disseminating misinformation," said Joseph Evans, digital media analyst at the consultancy Enders Analysis. "Google is addressing one of its most controversial products in this context. But it still looks like a refusal of responsibility to say that, 'Sometimes we're wrong, but we can solve the problem by offering multiple viewpoints.'"
He added Google now faced the challenge of when to present more than one point of view, as it was nearly always possible to find a source that contradicted conventional wisdom but not always wise to present it.
One consequence of the update is that publishers will face having their unsponsored links pushed further down the Search results page. But part of the reason the issue is pressing for the US company is the fact its Google Assistant virtual helper relies on Snippets to provide voice-based replies. Unlike on the web, links to other material are not presented - meaning a potential source of balance is lost.
So again, don't allow Google Assistant to give answers for complex issues. I've been playing with it on my shiny new phone recently (more later) and it just isn't up to scratch for anything advanced. It is useful, and I like it a lot, but it can't even work out that I've got an event scheduled today - I have to explicitly ask it what's happening in the morning. As witnessed recently, it can't tell you who Jesus is unless you add the very specific qualifier, "according to Christians". This is a good thing. Eventually it will be able to tell you something which is both sensible and balanced, but not yet.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42886944
“except in extreme cases” — slippery slope right there.
ReplyDeleteNot really.
ReplyDeleteDefine “extreme” in a non slippery way.
ReplyDeleteMy fear is that it becomes a vehicle for false equivalence.
ReplyDeleteOh, I wouldn't claim to be about to give a workable definition of extreme in the sense that I mean here. But I would claim to be able to point out at least some examples where the conclusion is established with such objective strength that a simple, one-line answer would be acceptable. For everything else, an Assistant shouldn't be used for political discourse at all.
ReplyDeleteExamples :
"Did the Holocaust happen ?" => "Yes."
"Is the Labour party left or right wing ?" => "Left wing."
"Is Bill Clinton a democrat ?" => "Yes."
"What is the political system of France ?" => "Democracy."
There are objective truths in politics just as in anything else. They may not be quantifiable (at least not numerically), but they are true. I don't see how any of these lead to a slippery slope. Considerable more caution is needed for ethical questions (admittedly my "should you join the Nazis" question is both political and ethical, and so perhaps a bad example, though I still don't see that one leading to a slippery slope).
Rhys Taylor What if I told you that I consider a representative Democracy more an elected aristocracy and only a direct democracy a true democracy.
ReplyDeleteAnd here goes one of your objective truth.
But a slippery slope is something else.
Step 1: Should i join the Nazi party: No.
But there are parties similar to the Nazi party. We should not join them as well:
Should i join the NPD party: No.
Should I join the National Front: No.
Should I join the British National Party
: No.
Rinse and repeat 5 times.
Should I join the UK Independence Party: No.
Rinse and repeat another 5 times.
Should I join the Conservative and Unionist Party: No.
Ups.
To prevent a slippery slope you need a hard measurable criteria which you are not going to move.
Martin Krischik Your definition of democracy is sophistry. If you want to alter definitions in such a way, you can say whatever you want and call it "true". Likewise, Nazis will say you should join the Nazi party, but that doesn't make it true either.
ReplyDeleteGranted, as I already said, the "which party should you join" question was a bad example - point conceded. However, I don't think it follows that if you allow questions regarding membership of a violent hate group it must also be able to give answers regarding a mainstream political party. Furthermore, as again I already said, nobody but nobody is going to base such a decision on what such an AI says.
Rhys Taylor The question is: Should I be allowed to discuss my opinion on the failings of a representative Democracy?
ReplyDeleteAnd, more importantly: Should I be allowed to search on google for likeminded people?
If I search for A I don't want results for B. Especially not with B being the opposite of A.
Or – “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer” — I might be searching for my opponents views to get a better understanding of there points to better argue against them.
If I search for A I want A as result and nothing else.
Martin Krischik Oh, that's entirely reasonable. If one wants a horoscope, one should get a horoscope - not an angry rant about why astrology is bunk. Or at least the angry rant should appear considerably down the search results... :)
ReplyDeleteOf course, definitions are largely conventional. So if you raise enough interest, it's entirely possible that you could eventually get the definition of representative democracy changed.
However, what Google attempts for snippets is to provide short answers to answerable questions. Ultimately one could always fall back on a philosophical/nihilistic approach :
"OK Google, what's the capital of France ?"
"Who cares ? All knowledge is subjective."
... but that wouldn't do much for sales. :P For snippets, the sensible approach (in my view) is to take the standard, widely-accepted answer. Where there is significant controversy or it's too complex to answer, this should be admitted. Just as with any textbook or other source of knowledge, it isn't going to be perfect - but it can certainly stop saying daft things about Obama planning a coup as though it were a fact.
That's the issue I have. There are legitimate reasons to discuss pretty much anything, but it's the presentation of objective falsehoods as facts that I have a problem with. Hence complex issues shouldn't have a snippet. There, the issue is the order in which they appear in the search results.