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

121–130 of 567 posts

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

#121

Post by ericmay »

CrillRaver wrote: post #113
ericmay wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

By definition we can never know for sure, but I believe the number of people who stay silent is many times bigger than those who voice their opinion. They've learned it is unproductive (as you say) or worst case, you're told you've got it all wrong technically speaking. Complaining is not unproductive, it signals to others they are not alone in their frustrations. Imagine that nobody ever responds or airs their frust…

My point was that complaining isn't enough and in my experience most people just complain but don't even take the smallest action in line with their views because it inconveniences them. Instead they lull themselves to sleep that something was done because they complained about it, and there's no need to adjust anything in their lives because they "did all they can do".

Instead of taking action they complain, set up an abstract boogeyman to take down, and then nobody can actually take action to make the world better (based on their point of view) because there's nothing anyone can do about Google the evil corporation because it's just some legal fiction. Bonus points for moralizing on the Internet and getting likes to feel even better about not doing anything.

But you can do something. If someone thinks Google is evil they can stop using Gmail or other Google products and services, or even just reduce their usage - maybe you can switch email providers but you only have one good map option. Ok at least you did a little more than you did previously.

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

#122

Post by randomNumber7 »

causal wrote: post #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.

You could even use audio to text before that and tap all conversations in a country...

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

#123

Post by ericmay »

Retric wrote: post #112
ericmay wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd never figure out who was "evil" because it's just based on your own interpretation of what evil is. Unless of course you want to join me as a moral objectivist? I don't think Google doing military work with the US government is evil. On the other and I think the influence and destruction caused by advertising algorithms is. Who gets to decide what is evil? I take issue with "don't blame the employees". You need…

If your defense is trying to argue about what’s evil, you’ve already lost. Putting money before other considerations is what’s evil. What’s “possible” expands based on your morality it doesn’t contract. If being polite makes a sale you’re going to find a lot of polite sales people, but how much are they willing to push that expended warrantee? > Sorry I'd be less evil but if I gave up my position as an evil henchman…

> Putting money before other considerations is what’s evil.

Depends on the considerations and what you consider to be evil. My point wasn't to argue about what's evil, of course there is probably a few hundred years of philosophy to overcome in that discussion, but to point out that if you truly think an organization is evil it's not useful to only care about the legal fiction or the CEO or the board that you won't have any impact on - you have to blame the workers who make the evil possible too, and stop using the products. Otherwise you're just deceiving yourself into feeling like you are doing something.

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

#124

Post by Retric »

ericmay wrote: post #123
Retric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your defense is trying to argue about what’s evil, you’ve already lost. Putting money before other considerations is what’s evil. What’s “possible” expands based on your morality it doesn’t contract. If being polite makes a sale you’re going to find a lot of polite sales people, but how much are they willing to push that expended warrantee? > Sorry I'd be less evil but if I gave up my position as an evil henchman…

> Putting money before other considerations is what’s evil. Depends on the considerations and what you consider to be evil. My point wasn't to argue about what's evil, of course there is probably a few hundred years of philosophy to overcome in that discussion, but to point out that if you truly think an organization is evil it's not useful to only care about the legal fiction or the CEO or the board that you won't h…

Again, you say that as if I am using the products of companies I consider evil.

The fact you assume people are going to do things they believe to be morally reprehensible is troubling to me.

I don’t assume people need to be evil to work at such companies because I don’t assume they notice the same things I do.

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

#125

Post by colonCapitalDee »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #51

I'm guessing this will be a somewhat controversial view here, but I think this is net good. The world is more turbulent than at any other time in my life, there is war in Europe, and the U.S. needs every advantage it can get to improve its defense. Companies like Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, can and should be working with the government on defense projects -- I would much rather the Department of Defense have access to…

Agreed. Any other answer is just burying your head in the sand. Our adversaries are forging ahead: China plans to integrate AI into every level of its military, and Russia is getting a crash course on drone warfare in Ukraine. You can build a FPV drone with Chinese parts and the warhead scavenged from an RPG for about $500 [1]. Every month, tens of thousands of these drones fly on Ukrainian battlefields and kill thousands of people. This is happening whether we like it or not; the train is leaving the station and we can either get on board or be left behind.

[1] https://www.kyivpost.com/post/44112

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

#126

Post by ericmay »

Retric wrote: post #124
ericmay wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Putting money before other considerations is what’s evil. Depends on the considerations and what you consider to be evil. My point wasn't to argue about what's evil, of course there is probably a few hundred years of philosophy to overcome in that discussion, but to point out that if you truly think an organization is evil it's not useful to only care about the legal fiction or the CEO or the board that you won't h…

Again, you say that as if I am using the products of companies I consider evil. The fact you assume people are going to do things they believe to be morally reprehensible is troubling to me. I don’t assume people need to be evil to work at such companies because I don’t assume they notice the same things I do.

I was writing about the general case. I apologize if that wasn't clear from the start. I don't know anything about you personally though I'm sure we'd have some great conversations over a glass of wine (or coffee or whatever :) )!

> The fact you assume people are going to do things they believe to be morally reprehensible is troubling to me.

This seems to be very common behavior in my experience. Perhaps the rhetoric doesn't match the true beliefs. I'm not sure.

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

#127

Post by nradov »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #117
zelon88 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're taking about pre-Clinton consumerism. That system is dead. It used to dictate that the company who could offer the best value deserved to take over most of the market. That's old thinking. Now we have servitization. Now the business who can most efficiently offer value deserves the entire market. Basically, iterate until you're the only one left standing and then never "sell" anything but licenses ever again.

Don't forget get your stock on and index that almost all retirement funds are required to put money into every month versus the old school stock market where it was a market not a cable bill (you have to pay for the whole bundle if you want it or not).

It's easy to set up an IRA where you can trade individual securities instead of index funds if that's what you want. Most people aren't competent traders and will underperform the index funds.

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

#128

Post by Retric »

ericmay wrote: post #126
Retric wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you say that as if I am using the products of companies I consider evil. The fact you assume people are going to do things they believe to be morally reprehensible is troubling to me. I don’t assume people need to be evil to work at such companies because I don’t assume they notice the same things I do.

I was writing about the general case. I apologize if that wasn't clear from the start. I don't know anything about you personally though I'm sure we'd have some great conversations over a glass of wine (or coffee or whatever :) )! > The fact you assume people are going to do things they believe to be morally reprehensible is troubling to me. This seems to be very common behavior in my experience. Perhaps the rhetoric…

Ahh ok, sorry for misunderstanding you.

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

#129

Post by ericmay »

Retric wrote: post #128
ericmay wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was writing about the general case. I apologize if that wasn't clear from the start. I don't know anything about you personally though I'm sure we'd have some great conversations over a glass of wine (or coffee or whatever :) )! > The fact you assume people are going to do things they believe to be morally reprehensible is troubling to me. This seems to be very common behavior in my experience. Perhaps the rhetoric…

Ahh ok, sorry for misunderstanding you.

It's my fault. Sometimes I'm not very clear.

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

#130

Post by mainecoder »

nirav72 wrote: post #73
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’re not evil, they’re amoral and are designed to maximize profits for their investors. Evil is subjective.

>Evil is subjective. Everything is subjective - moralist bro It's all priced in - Wall street bro learn to code - tech bro
Post reply on HN