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

331–340 of 567 posts

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

#331

Post by WOTERMEON »

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.

I mean you can see that even at any company at any size. I think it’s human nature.

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

#333

Post by gizmondo »

dylan604 wrote: post #60
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…

What is Googs going to do, leave money on the table? And if Googs doesn't do it, someone else will, so it might as well be them that makes money for their shareholders. Technically, couldn't activist shareholders come together and claim by not going after this market the leadership should be replaced for those that would? After all, share prices is the only metric that matters

Activist shareholders can claim whatever they want, at the end of the day it's just noise, founders control the company completely.

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

#334

Post by catlikesshrimp »

siltcakes wrote: post #317
mkolodny wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vague “stuff is happening behind closed doors” isn’t enough of a reason to build AI weapons. If you shared a specific weapon that could only be countered with AI weapons, that might make me feel differently. But right now I can’t imagine a reason we’d need or want robots to decide who to kill. When people talk about AI being dangerous, or possibly bringing about the end of the world, I usually disagree. But AI weap…

I agree. I don't think there's really a case for the US developing any offensive weapons. Geographically, economically and politically, we are not under any sort of credible threat. Maybe AI based missile defense or something, but we already have a completely unjustified arsenal of offensive weapons and a history of using them amorally.

"Geographically, economically and politically, we are not under any sort of credible threat. "

The US is politically and economically declining, already. And its area of influence has been weakening since, the 90's?

It would be bad strategy to not do anything until you feel hopelessly threathened.

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

#335

Post by gosub100 »

astrange wrote: post #165
ziddoap wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all weapons are evil That wasn't the quote that was removed. Not even close, really.

It's definitely an opinion Google employees had in the last decade. Actually I think a lot of people have it - just yesterday I saw someone on reddit claim Google was evil because it was secretly founded by the US military. And they were American. That's their military!

they have no problems heavily censoring law-abiding gun youtubers. Even changing the rules and giving them strikes retroactively. I guess it's "weapons for me, but not for thee".

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

#336

Post by siltcakes »

scottyah wrote: post #330
siltcakes wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I don't think there's really a case for the US developing any offensive weapons. Geographically, economically and politically, we are not under any sort of credible threat. Maybe AI based missile defense or something, but we already have a completely unjustified arsenal of offensive weapons and a history of using them amorally.

Without going too far into it, if we laid down all offensive weapons the cartels in Mexico would be inside US borders and killing people within a day.

You think the cartels aren't attacking us because we have missiles that can hit Mexico? I don't agree. Somewhat tangentially, the cartels only exist because the US made recreational drugs illegal.

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

#337

Post by captainbland »

worik wrote: post #265
captainbland wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or better yet, misinterpret who the target is even supposed to be because of a hallucination.

> Or better yet, misinterpret who the target is even supposed to be because of a hallucination. Who, in that business, cares? AI will provide a fig leaf for the indiscriminate large scale killing that is regularly done since the start of industrialised warfare. Using robots spare drone pilots from PTSD From the perspective of the murderous thugs that run our nations (way way before the current bunch of plainly bonker…

AI driven drones in particular seem like ideal tools for carrying out a genocide: identify an ethnicity based off some physical characteristics, kill. No paperwork, no transport, no human conscience. Just manufacture, deploy and instruct at scale. Sure, it might get it wrong sometimes but you've got to break a few eggs...

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

#338

Post by jcgrillo »

siltcakes wrote: post #277
tmnvdb wrote: post #143

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

Do you see nothing wrong with the same company that makes YouTube Kids making killer AI? I think creating weapons is often evil. I think companies that have consumer brands should never make weapons, at the very least it's white washing what's really going on. At worst, they can leverage their media properties for propaganda purposes, spy on your Gmail and Maps usage and act as a vector for the most nefarious cyber t…

It sounds like they're distracted, tbh. It's hard to imagine how a company that specializes in getting children addicted to unboxing videos can possibly be good at killing people.. oh, wait, maybe not after all..

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

#339

Post by astrange »

jjj123 wrote: post #195
astrange wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely an opinion Google employees had in the last decade. Actually I think a lot of people have it - just yesterday I saw someone on reddit claim Google was evil because it was secretly founded by the US military. And they were American. That's their military!

It’s my military too and I believe the US military does many, many evil things that I want no part of.

I think the thing to remember is, however bad it is, it could always get worse.

A world without the US navy is one without sea shipping because pirates will come back.

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

#340

Post by tmnvdb »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #260
tmnvdb wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The risks needs to be weighed against the downside of not deploying a capable system against your enemies.
Post reply on HN