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

371–380 of 567 posts

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

#371

Post by sudoshred »

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…

As scale grows the moral ambiguity does also. Megacorps default to “evil” because action in a large number of circumstances for a large number of events does as well, particularly when economic factors are motivating behavior (implicitly or explicitly). Essentially being “non-evil” becomes more expensive than the value it adds. There is always someone on the other end of a transaction, by definition.

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

#372

Post by int_19h »

Ekaros wrote: post #52
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.

The bait-and-switch model is absolutely amazing as well. Start by offering a service covered with ads. Then add paid tier to get rid of ads. Next add tier with payment and ads. And finally add ads back to every possible tier. Not to forget about keeping them in content all the time.

To quote the email from Hulu that recently dropped into my inbox:

> We are clarifying that, as we continue to increase the breadth and depth of the content we make available to you, circumstances may require that certain titles and types of content include ads, even in our 'no ads' or 'ad free' subscription tiers.

So at this point they aren't even bothering to rename the tier from "ad free" even as they put ads in it. Or maybe it's supposed to mean "the ads come free with it" now? Newspeak indeed.

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

#373

Post by tmnvdb »

pbiggar wrote: post #291

An important part of this discussion is how Google's AI is used as part of the genocide in Gaza. Read here for more details about the role of AI there: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

That Article does not mention Google, and Google did not develop the Lavender system used by the Israeli.

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

#374

Post by int_19h »

ericmay wrote: post #47
Retric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 woul…

A large corporation is more than the sum of its owners and employees, though. Large organizations in general have an emergent phenomenon - past a certain threshold, they have a "mind of it own", so to speak, which - yes - still consists of individual actions of people making the organization, but those people are no longer acting as they normally would. They get influenced by corporate culture, or fall in line because they are conditioned to socially conform, or follow the (morally repugnant) rule book because otherwise they will be punished etc. It's almost as if it was a primitive brain with people as neurons, forced into configurations that, above all, are designed to perpetuate its own existence.

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

#375

Post by int_19h »

dahdum wrote: post #319
octopoc wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It took the use of poison gas to get countries on board, and some will still use it. Just more carefully. Would China, Russia, or Iran agree to such a preemptive AI weapons ban? Doubtful, it’s their chance to close the gap. I’m onboard if so, but I don’t see anything happening on that front until well after they start dominating the landscape.

Russia would most definitely not agree to it given that Ukraine is already deploying autonomous drones against it.

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

#376

Post by computerthings »

mkolodny wrote: post #305
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…

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…

> AI weapons are obviously dangerous, and could easily get out of control.

The real danger is when they can't. When they, without hesitation or remorse, kill one or millions of people with maximum efficiency, or "just" exist with that capability, to threaten them with such a fate. Unlike nuclear weapons, in case of a stalemate between superpowers they can also be turned inwards.

Using AI for defensive weapons is one thing, and maybe some of those would have to shoot explosives at other things to defend; but just going with "eh, we need to have the ALL possible offensive capability to defend against ANY possible offensive capability" is not credible to me.

The threat scenario is supposed to be masses of enemy automated weapons, not huddled masses; so why isn't the objective to develop weapons that are really good at fighting automatic weapons, but literally can't/won't kill humans, because that's would remain something only human soldiers do? Quite the elephant on the couch IMO.

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

#377

Post by int_19h »

Etheryte wrote: post #72
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.

This has already been possible long before LLMs came along. I also doubt that an LLM is the best tool for this at scale, if you're talking about sifting through billions of messages it gets too expensive very fast.

It's only expensive if you throw all data directly at the largest models that you have. But the usual way to apply LMs to such large amounts of data is by staggering them: you have very small & fast classifiers operating first to weed out anything vaguely suspicious (and you train them to be aggressive - false positives are okay, false negatives are not). Things that get through get reviewed by a more advanced model. Repeat the loop as many times as needed for best throughput.

No, OP is right. We are truly at the dystopian point where a sufficiently rich government can track the loyalty of its citizens in real time by monitoring all electronic communications.

Also, "expensive" is relative. When you consider how much US has historically been willing to spend on such things...

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

#378

Post by int_19h »

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

It's a bit too late for that, since Ukraine and Russia are both already using AI-controlled drones in combat.

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

#379

Post by int_19h »

darth_avocado wrote: post #177
tmnvdb wrote: post #143

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

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.

That's the problem with all weapons.

The concern with AI weapons specifically is that if something goes wrong, they might not even be in the hands of the people at all, but pursue their own objective.

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

#380

Post by greenchair »

moralestapia wrote: post #101
1024core wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's more like "If I don't do this job, someone else will"...

This is the big issue that came along when stable households (mom/dad taking care of you) were replaced by fentanyl and TikTok. Moral character is something that has to be taught, it doesn't just come out on its own. If your parents don't do it properly, you'll be just another cog in the soulless machine to which human life is of no value.

bingo. taught and reinforced with consequences.
Post reply on HN