Live data from Hacker News

Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

washingtonpost.com

21–30 of 567 posts

Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

#21
post #6

What is a $1M TC when you'll get jacked on your way to the tech bus for turning America into mad max? You're not rich enough to have your own billionaire bunker.

There are plenty of people on here working for Boeing, Ratheon, etc, actively contributing to actual killings of actual people. Those folks don’t get confronted, why would it be different here?

The obvious answer is "visibility", but I'm also skeptical of the whole idea.

Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

#23
post #2

I initially thought that this was an announcement for a new pledge and thought, "they're going to forget about this the moment it's convenient." Then I read the article and realized, "Oh, it's already convenient." Google is a megacorp, and while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil), they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality, and any appearance that they are is purely…

The market solves all problems. ... or at least that's what these people have to be telling themselves at all times .

It is partially the markets fault. If they were demonized for this, there's at least be a veneer of trying to look moral. Instead they can simply go full mask off. That's why you shouldn't tolerate the intolerant.

Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

#25
post #2

I initially thought that this was an announcement for a new pledge and thought, "they're going to forget about this the moment it's convenient." Then I read the article and realized, "Oh, it's already convenient." Google is a megacorp, and while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil), they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality, and any appearance that they are is purely…

"We won't use your dollars and efforts for bad and destructive activities, until we accumulate enough of your dollars and efforts that we no longer care about your opinions".

Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

#26
post #2

I initially thought that this was an announcement for a new pledge and thought, "they're going to forget about this the moment it's convenient." Then I read the article and realized, "Oh, it's already convenient." Google is a megacorp, and while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil), they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality, and any appearance that they are is purely…

> while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil),

I think megacorps being evil is universal. It tends to be corrupt cop evil vs serial killer evil, but being willing to do anything for money has historically been categorized as evil behavior.

That doesn’t mean society would be better or worse off without them, but it would be interesting to see a world where companies pay vastly higher taxes as they grow.

Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

#27
One of my chief worries about LLMs for intelligence agencies is the ability to scale textual analysis. Previously there at least had to be an agent taking an interest in you; today an LLM could theoretically read all text you've ever touched and flag anything from legal violations to political sentiments.

Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

#28
post #2

I initially thought that this was an announcement for a new pledge and thought, "they're going to forget about this the moment it's convenient." Then I read the article and realized, "Oh, it's already convenient." Google is a megacorp, and while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil), they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality, and any appearance that they are is purely…

A megacorp is amoral. They have no concern over an individual anymore than a human has concern for an ant, because individuals simply don’t register to them. The ant may regard the human as pure evil for the destruction it rains upon its colony, but the ants are not even a thought in the human’s mind most of the time.

Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

#29
post #5

The new administration seems to be dropping "soft power" in exchange for an emphasis on hard power... but hard power is more expensive and backfires more spectacularly than soft power. I think they are digging a hole for themselves and can't stop because a few rich people are making a lot of money on kickbacks.

History shows that they aren't really digging a hole for themselves.

This whole thing where the average person feels that they can use rules against a more powerful person? That's really an invention of maybe the last 80 years, if not more recently than that.

With the exception of that human lifetime-sized era, the vast majority of history is a bunch of psychopaths running things and getting to kill/screw whoever they wanted and steal whatever they wanted. Successful revolts are few and far between. The only real difference is the stakes.

Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

#30
post #2

I initially thought that this was an announcement for a new pledge and thought, "they're going to forget about this the moment it's convenient." Then I read the article and realized, "Oh, it's already convenient." Google is a megacorp, and while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil), they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality, and any appearance that they are is purely…

The market solves all problems. ... or at least that's what these people have to be telling themselves at all times .

The market's objectives are wealth-weighted.

This is a very important point to remember when assessing ideas like "Is it good to build swarms of murderbots to mow down rioting peasants angry over having expenses but no jobs?" Most people might answer "no," but if the people with money answer "yes," that becomes the market's objective. Then the incentives diffuse through the economy and you don't just get the murderbots, you also get the news stations explaining how the violent peasants brought this on themselves and the politicians making murderbots tax deductible and so on.

Post reply on HN