Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 567 posts

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

#41

Post by nradov »

jsheard wrote: post #18
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #9

Other countries will use AI for weapons - shouldn’t the EU and US also do that to remain competitive?

It's not exactly unheard of for certain weapons to be declared off-limits by most countries even if the "bad guys" are using them - think chemical and biological agents, landmines, cluster munitions, blinding weapons and so on. I doubt there will ever be treaties completely banning any use of AI in warfare but there might be bans on specific applications, particularly using it to make fully autonomous weapons which s…

Landmines and cluster munitions have been among Ukraine's most effective weapons for resisting the Russian invasion. Without those, Ukraine would likely have already lost the war. It's so bizarre how some people who face no real risks themselves think that those weapons should be declared off-limits.

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

#42

Post by mananaysiempre »

Retric wrote: post #26
a_shovel wrote: 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 tax…

Most suggestions of this nature fail to explain how they will deal with the problem of people just seeing there’s no point in trying for more. On a personal level, I’ve heard people from Norway describe this problem for personal income tax—at some point (notably below a typical US senior software engineer’s earnings) the amount of work you need to put in for the marginal post-tax krone is so high it’s just demotivating, and you either coast or emigrate. Perhaps that’s not entirely undesirable, but I don’t know if people have contemplated the consequences of the existence of such a de facto ceiling seriously.

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

#44

Post by Clamchop »

At what point does a public promise carry any legal weight whatsoever? If it carries none, then why not leave it in place and lie? If it carries some, for how long and who has standing to sue?

Genuine questions. Unlike "don't be evil," this promise has a very narrow and clear interpretation.

It would be nice if companies weren't able to just kinda say whatever when it's expedient.

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

#45

Post by mystified5016 »

a_shovel wrote: 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…

> they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality

No, no. Call a spade a spade. This behavior and attitude is evil. Corporations under modern American capitalism must be evil. That's how capitalism works.

You succeed in capitalism not by building a better mousetrap, but by destroying anyone who builds a better moustrap than you. You litigate, acquire, bribe, and rewrite legislation to ensure yours is the best and only mousetrap available to purchase, with a token 'competitor' kept on life support so you can plausibly deny anticompetitive practices.

If you're a good company trying to do good things, you simply can't compete. The market just does not value what is good, just, or beneficial. The market only wants number to go up, and to go up right now at any cost. Amazon will start pumping out direct clones of your product for pennies. What are you gonna do, sue Amazon?! best of luck.

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

#46

Post by kelseyfrog »

lenerdenator wrote: post #8
a_shovel wrote: 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 .

I have full faith that the market[1] will direct the trolley onto the morally optimal track. It's invisible hand will guide mine when I decide or decide against pulling the lever. Either way, I can be sure that the result is maximally beneficial to the participants, myself included.

1. https://drakelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/lrdisc...

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

#47

Post by ericmay »

Retric wrote: post #26
a_shovel wrote: 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 tax…

My problem with this take is that you forget, the corporations are made up of people, so in order for the corporation to be evil you have to take into account the aggregate desires and decision making of the employees and shareholders and, frankly, call them all evil. Calling them evil is kind of a silly thing to do anyway, but you can not divorce the actions of a company from those who run and support it, and I would argue you can't divorce those actions from those who buy the products the company puts out either.

So in effect you have to call the employees and shareholders evil. Well those are the same people who also work and hold public office from time to time, or are shareholders, or whatever. You can't limit this "evilness" to just an abstract corporation. Not only is it not true, you are setting up your "problem" so that it can't be addressed because you're only moralizing over the abstract corporation and not the physical manifestation of the corporation either. What do you do about the abstract corporation being evil if not taking action in the physical world against the physical people who work at and run the corporation and those who buy its products?

I've noticed similar behavior with respect to climate change advocacy and really just "government" in general. If you can't take personal responsibility, or even try to change your own habits, volunteer, work toward public office, organize, etc. it's less than useless to rail about these entities that many claim are immoral or need reform if you are not personally going to get up and do something about it. Instead you (not you specifically) just complain on the Internet or to friends and family, those complaints do nothing, and you feel good about your complaining so you don't feel like you need to actually do anything to make change. This is very unproductive because you have made yourself feel good about the problem but haven't actually done anything.

With all that being said, I'm not sure how paying vastly higher taxes would make Google (or any other company) less evil or more evil. What if Google pays more taxes and that tax money does (insert really bad thing you don't like)? Paying taxes isn't like a moral good or moral bad thing.

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

#48

Post by jsheard »

nradov wrote: post #41
jsheard wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exactly unheard of for certain weapons to be declared off-limits by most countries even if the "bad guys" are using them - think chemical and biological agents, landmines, cluster munitions, blinding weapons and so on. I doubt there will ever be treaties completely banning any use of AI in warfare but there might be bans on specific applications, particularly using it to make fully autonomous weapons which s…

Landmines and cluster munitions have been among Ukraine's most effective weapons for resisting the Russian invasion. Without those, Ukraine would likely have already lost the war. It's so bizarre how some people who face no real risks themselves think that those weapons should be declared off-limits.

Nobody said they're not effective during a war, the problem is they remain effective against any random civilians who happen to stumble across them for a long time after the war is over. Potentially decades, as seen in Cambodia.

It would be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory to repel an attempted takeover of your land, only for that land to end up contaminated with literally millions of landmines because you didn't have a mutual agreement against using them.

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

#49

Post by AvAn12 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #9

Other countries will use AI for weapons - shouldn’t the EU and US also do that to remain competitive?

Analogy is not apt. If other countries are trying to pry into our data and systems, then the right move for google or any other tech company is to advance our defenses and make cybersecurity stronger, more available, and easier for companies and people to use. If someone is trying to hack me, it's much smarter for me to defend myself rather than try to hack the other guy back.

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

#50

Post by mr90210 »

jmyeet wrote: post #11

If you work for big tech now, you’re working for a defense contractor, no different to Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman. Ultimately every sufficiently large company seems to become an arms dealer, a drug dealer or a bank. We need look no further than Lavender [1] to see where this ends up. [1]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

I have been pondering about such subject over the past weeks. Maybe one could compare it to people who worked for Allianz, Audi, Bayer, BMW, IBM and others before 1945.
Post reply on HN