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

251–260 of 567 posts

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

#251

Post by lmm »

bodegajed wrote: post #197
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #148

I want to be upset over this in an exasperated expression of oddly naive "why can't we all get along?" frame of mind. I want to, because I know how I would like the world to look like, but as a species we, including myself, continually fail to disappoint when it comes nearly guaranteed self-destruction. I want to get upset over it, but I sadly recognize the reality of the why this is not surprising to anyone. We actu…

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." - Karl Marx

And how did that work out for him? If he'd stuck to interpreting the world, it's hard to say the world wouldn't have been much better off.

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

#252

Post by SanjayMehta »

octopoc wrote: post #188
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #148

I want to be upset over this in an exasperated expression of oddly naive "why can't we all get along?" frame of mind. I want to, because I know how I would like the world to look like, but as a species we, including myself, continually fail to disappoint when it comes nearly guaranteed self-destruction. I want to get upset over it, but I sadly recognize the reality of the why this is not surprising to anyone. We actu…

In WWII neither side used poison gas. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Not on the battlefield.

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

#253

Post by burningChrome »

psunavy03 wrote: post #208
darth_avocado wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weapons inherently aren’t evil, which is why everyone has kitchen knives. People use weapons to do evil. The problem with building AI weapons is that eventually it will be in the hands of people who are morally bankrupt and therefore will use them to do evil.

Then we should be encouraging their development by the governments of liberal democratic nations as opposed to authoritarian regimes.

Serious question.

How would we go about doing that?

Every kind of nefarious way to keep the truth at bay in authoritarian regimes is always on the table. From the cracking of iPhones to track journalists covering these regimes, to snooping on email, to using AI to do this? Is just all the same thing, just updated and improved tools.

Just like Kevin Mitnick selling zero day exploits to the highest bidder, I have a hard time seeing how these get developed and somehow stay out of reach of the regimes you speak of.

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

#254

Post by captainbland »

tmnvdb wrote: post #143

Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.

Whatever your feelings on that are, it's hardly unreasonable to have misgivings about your search and YouTube watches going to fund sloppy AI weapons programmes that probably won't even kill the right people.

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

#255

Post by vkou »

tmnvdb wrote: post #249
vkou wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have Putin at home, he spent the past weekend making populist noises about annexing his neighbours over bullshit pretenses. I'm sure this sounds like a big nothingburger from the perspective of, you know, people he isn't threatening. How can you excuse that behaviour? How can you think someone like that can be trusted with any weapons? How naive and morally bankrupt do you have to be to build a gun for that kind o…

I understand the sentiment but the logical conclusion of that argument is that the US should disarm and cease existing.

The better logical conclusion of that argument is that the US needs to remove him, and replace him with someone who isn't threatening innocent people.

That it won't is a mixture of cowardice, cynical opportunism, and complicity with unprovoked aggression.

In which case, I posit that yes, if you're fine with threatening or inflicting violence on innocent people, you don't have a moral right to 'self-defense'. It makes you a predator, and arming a predator is a mistake.

You lose any moral ground you have when you are an unprovoked aggressor.

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

#256

Post by Swannie »

dgfitz wrote: post #150
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #148

I want to be upset over this in an exasperated expression of oddly naive "why can't we all get along?" frame of mind. I want to, because I know how I would like the world to look like, but as a species we, including myself, continually fail to disappoint when it comes nearly guaranteed self-destruction. I want to get upset over it, but I sadly recognize the reality of the why this is not surprising to anyone. We actu…

Could you imagine how the entire world would look if they took truth serum for an entire year, how different the world might be? Lies run the planet, and it stinks.

Yes, have you watched The Wheel of Time? Better to read the books... the characters bound to tell the truth are experts in double meanings.

Successful politicans and sociopaths are experts in double meanings.

"I will not drop bombs on Acmeland." Instead, I will send missiles.

"At this point in time, we do not intend to end the tariffs." The intent will change when conditions change, which is forecast next week.

"We are not in negotations to acquire AI Co for $1B." We are negotiating for $0.9B.

"Our results show an improvement for a majority of recipients." 51% saw an improvement of 1%, 49% saw a decline of 5%...

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

#258

Post by jarboot »

From Gandhi's commentary on chapter 1 of the Bhagavad Gita:

> ... evil cannot by itself flourish in this world. It can do so only if it is allied with some good. This was the principle underlying noncooperation—that the evil system which the [British colonial] Government represents, and which has endured only because of the support it receives from good people, cannot survive if that support is withdrawn.

If you are a good person working for the big G...

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

#259

Post by lmm »

aydyn wrote: post #242
IIAOPSW wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who should develop biological weapons? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Ideally no one, and if the cost / expertise is so niche that only a handful of sophisticated actors could possibly actually do it, then in fact (by way of enforceable treaty) no one.

So in other words, cede military superiority to your enemies? Come on you already know the rational solution to prisoner's dilemma, MAD, etc. > enforceable treaty How would you enforce it after you get nuked?

> in other words, cede military superiority to your enemies?

We're talking about making war slightly more expensive for yourself to preserve the things that matter, which is a trade-off that we make all the time. Even in war you don't have to race for the bottom for every marginal fraction-of-a-percent edge. We've managed to e.g. ban antipersonnel landmines, this is an extremely similar case.

> How would you enforce it after you get nuked?

And yet we've somehow managed to avoid getting into nuclear wars.

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

#260

Post by bluefirebrand »

tmnvdb wrote: post #204
darth_avocado wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet there are boundaries on which weapons we can and cannot develop: Nuclear, Chemical, Biological etc.

Indeed. Usually weapons are banned if the damage is high and indiscriminate while the military usefulness is low. There is at this moment little evidence that autonomous weapons will cause more collateral damage than artillery shells and regular air strikes. The military usefulness on other other hand seems to be very high and increasing.

It seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be wanting evidence of in order to avoid, though

Like skydiving without a parachute, I think we should accept it is a bad idea without needing a double blind study

Post reply on HN