NYT Publishes Anti-Google Rant, Doesn't Mention Author Is Facebook Board Member (gizmodo.com) 109
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: The New York Times published an anti-Google screed by billionaire Peter Thiel last night but failed to mention a fun fact that readers might find relevant: Thiel sits on the board of Facebook, one of Google's largest competitors. Thiel first blasted Google as "treasonous" last month, saying that the FBI and CIA should investigate the company for working with the Chinese government. The tech investor even asked if Google had been infiltrated by Chinese spies, a highly inflammatory charge that he didn't substantiate. Thiel has now followed up his anti-Google remarks in a new piece for the Times praising President Donald Trump and railing against "globalization."
Thiel's central argument is that anyone helping China to develop artificial intelligence technologies is assisting China's military because, he says, all AI should be seen first and foremost as having military applications: "A.I. is a military technology. Forget the sci-fi fantasy; what is powerful about actually existing A.I. is its application to relatively mundane tasks like computer vision and data analysis. Though less uncanny than Frankenstein's monster, these tools are nevertheless valuable to any army -- to gain an intelligence advantage, for example, or to penetrate defenses in the relatively new theater of cyberwarfare, where we are already living amid the equivalent of a multinational shooting war." Thiel, who in 2017 sold the majority of his Facebook shares but remains on its board of directors, goes on to characterize Google as "naive" for opening an AI lab in China while deciding to not renew a contract for its work on Project Maven, a U.S. military initiative for which the company was developing an AI system to analyze drone footage, following employee backlash. Thiel also acknowledges that AI can be used for civilian purposes, but he claims that it doesn't matter. He calls Google's actions "shocking": "A.I.'s military power is the simple reason that the recent behavior of America's leading software company, Google -- starting an A.I. lab in China while ending an A.I. contract with the Pentagon -- is shocking. As President Barack Obama's defense secretary Ash Carter pointed out last month, 'If you're working in China, you don't know whether you're working on a project for the military or not.'"
He continues: "How can Google use the rhetoric of 'borderless' benefits to justify working with the country whose 'Great Firewall' has imposed a border on the internet itself? This way of thinking works only inside Google's cosseted Northern California campus, quite distinct from the world outside. The Silicon Valley attitude sometimes called 'cosmopolitanism' is probably better understood as an extreme strain of parochialism, that of fortunate enclaves isolated from the problems of other places -- and incurious about them."
At the end of the op-ed, where it says "Peter Thiel is an entrepreneur and investor," would be a great place to note that Peter Thiel is also on the board of Facebook.
Thiel's central argument is that anyone helping China to develop artificial intelligence technologies is assisting China's military because, he says, all AI should be seen first and foremost as having military applications: "A.I. is a military technology. Forget the sci-fi fantasy; what is powerful about actually existing A.I. is its application to relatively mundane tasks like computer vision and data analysis. Though less uncanny than Frankenstein's monster, these tools are nevertheless valuable to any army -- to gain an intelligence advantage, for example, or to penetrate defenses in the relatively new theater of cyberwarfare, where we are already living amid the equivalent of a multinational shooting war." Thiel, who in 2017 sold the majority of his Facebook shares but remains on its board of directors, goes on to characterize Google as "naive" for opening an AI lab in China while deciding to not renew a contract for its work on Project Maven, a U.S. military initiative for which the company was developing an AI system to analyze drone footage, following employee backlash. Thiel also acknowledges that AI can be used for civilian purposes, but he claims that it doesn't matter. He calls Google's actions "shocking": "A.I.'s military power is the simple reason that the recent behavior of America's leading software company, Google -- starting an A.I. lab in China while ending an A.I. contract with the Pentagon -- is shocking. As President Barack Obama's defense secretary Ash Carter pointed out last month, 'If you're working in China, you don't know whether you're working on a project for the military or not.'"
He continues: "How can Google use the rhetoric of 'borderless' benefits to justify working with the country whose 'Great Firewall' has imposed a border on the internet itself? This way of thinking works only inside Google's cosseted Northern California campus, quite distinct from the world outside. The Silicon Valley attitude sometimes called 'cosmopolitanism' is probably better understood as an extreme strain of parochialism, that of fortunate enclaves isolated from the problems of other places -- and incurious about them."
At the end of the op-ed, where it says "Peter Thiel is an entrepreneur and investor," would be a great place to note that Peter Thiel is also on the board of Facebook.
companies that build technology to collect data (Score:5, Interesting)
Can be too...
But Palantir isn't and they actively do nasty things.
Facebook as a google competitor? Eh, ok sort of.
Be more afraid of Palantir
Re: (Score:1)
Google's most used features are
Search
YouTube
GMail
Facebook has no significant presence in any of those areas. How is Facebook a "competitor" of Google? Because they're on the Internet? Because they make money from advertising?
This just sounds like another butthurt liberal faggot who hates Peter Thiel because he likes Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How is Facebook a "competitor" of Google?
The primary business of both companies is selling ads. They compete for ad buys.
Re: (Score:2)
How is Facebook a "competitor" of Google?
The primary business of both companies is selling ads. They compete for ad buys.
by this definition, Trader Joe's is a competitor of Best Buy, because they both sell things ?
Is he wrong? (Score:1)
It seems this article wants to attack the author instead of the ideas. So you don't like Peter Thiel; great. But he is not automatically wrong because of who he is. His concern seems to be valid. Why would Google be willing to help China with their AI projects but not the USA? Good question!
Re: (Score:2)
It seems this article wants to attack the author instead of the ideas. So you don't like Peter Thiel; great. But he is not automatically wrong because of who he is. His concern seems to be valid.
Exactly right. The fact that Thiel is on Facebook's board of directors is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Thiel is mostly a douchbag but at least someone is calling out Google for what they're doing in China.
Re: Is he wrong? (Score:1)
Because what Google is doing is only significant if Facebook isn't doing the same thing. If you're gonna take down Google then you have to take down all the ones doing it, not get one while the other goes scot free. Facebook and peter thiel need to through the same scrutiny they're putting Google under. Facebook and Peter thiel should not be exempt from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he was wrong to use the word "treasonous", if nothing else. The Constitutional barrier for "treason" is so high that only seven people were convicted of treason since the end of the Civil War (and four before that).
Note, for example, that one of the seven was convicted for defecting to the Waffen SS during ww2. Other luminaries so convicted include Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally....
Re: (Score:3)
Other luminaries so convicted include Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally....
Tokyo Rose [wikipedia.org] was convicted on false evidence and anti-Japanese bias. She had never said anything during her broadcasts that was overtly anti-American. Many of the things she was accused of saying were actually from other female broadcasters. The initial investigation by the military in 1945, had found no evidence that she had said or done anything that aided the Japanese war effort.
She was released from prison about 10 years after her conviction, and was later pardoned by President Gerald Ford.
Our foundin
Not a secret (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Someone is totally jealous!
"Peter is a big poo poo head and probably smells!"
Re: Not a secret (Score:2)
Re: Not a secret (Score:2)
Old saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Pot calling the kettle black. Oh wait, am I still allowed to say that?
Re: (Score:1)
My first thought reading this (Score:2, Offtopic)
And of course Kamala Harris tried to pass off a healthcare lobbyist [youtube.com] as the main supporter for her healthcare bill.
It seems to becoming SOP to bring on shills and not talk about their conflicts of interest. When I was a lad nobody would dare pull this crap because as bad as our media was they'd at least mention ever single conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually don't remember a time when every single conflict of interest was mentioned, I don't recall it a being an issue even (except for the financial analysts pages where they've always done that and still do).
Thiel is protecting Palantir (Score:5, Informative)
Peter Thiel is controversial but not a moron, he was a founder of both Palantir and Paypal.
The Chinese lead the world in face recognition and various forms of Internet censorship and political surveillance. So any big tech company with access to Chinese cutting-edge products is going to be a nasty competitor to Palantir. Seen in this context, Thiel is attempting to block his competitors' strategy of buying better tech and leapfrogging Palantir in contracts handed out in the somewhat backward USA.
e.
Re: Thiel is protecting Palantir (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Thiel is protecting Palantir (Score:3)
Re: Thiel is protecting Palantir (Score:2)
Rich asshole roasts competitor (Score:1, Offtopic)
At the bottom of the story... (Score:2, Informative)
The NYT added that after all the criticism (Score:4, Informative)
This was one of the advantages of printed newspapers. If the paper screwed up or was deliberately being deceptive in an article, the evidence was preserved for all to see. But nowadays, the paper can secretly update the article without mentioning that it's been modified from its original form, tricking people into thinking they did nothing wrong. And even causing some people to think the people criticizing the paper are the ones who erred.
Doesn't mean he's wrong. (Score:2)
And the obviously biased headline and summary sure seem to point to a Googler who's not helping their cause.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're really going to talk about credentials, being a Facebook board member is already more impressive than a random blogger, or Gizmodo
Re: (Score:2)
NO WAY! a fat no name neck beard living in his van has WAY more credibility than someone who actually did something with his life and is a millionaire. And anyone who even likes Trump is clearly a totally evil person. Everyone knows that!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The people making the ad hominem attacks need to STFU.
This is the guy who took down Gawker. He's a hero in my book.
WRONG (Score:1)
Why would you post blatantly false information? The article clearly says:
Peter Thiel, an entrepreneur and investor, is on the board of Facebook and is a founder and chairman of Palantir.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My rant wasn't against Gizmodo, but more against Beau, who puts up crap for articles more frequently than any prior editor.
Re: (Score:1)
Who is Peter Thiel? The Portal (Score:5, Informative)
Here is Peter Thiel talking about abstract concepts for two hours:
https://youtu.be/nM9f0W2KD5s [youtu.be]
it you'd rather understand his perspective than react to a political headline. Or perhaps even react or criticize in an informed manner.
Tired of being victimized... (Score:1)
I am tired of paying for their infringements, and of being helpless against them when they assert their weight.