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

401–410 of 567 posts

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

#401

Post by anon373839 »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #399
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…

A megacorp is made up of people. So it's people who are fundamentally evil. The main thing here I think is anonymity through numbers and complexity. You and thousands of others just want to see the numbers go up. And that desire is what ultimately influences decisions like this. If google stock dropped because of this then google wouldn't do it. But it is the actions of humans in aggregate that keeps it up. Megacorpo…

You're half right. Corporations are just made of people. But, they're more than the sum of their parts. The numbers and complexity do more than provide anonymity: they provide a mechanism where individuals can work in concert to accomplish bad things in the aggregate, without (necessarily) requiring any particular individual to violate their conscience. It just happens through the power of incentives and specialization. If you're in upper management, the complexity also makes it easier to turn a blind eye to what is happening down below.

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

#402

Post by ignoramous »

psunavy03 wrote: post #210
ignoramous wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief It isn't this that's insane, but a total belief purity of weapons that is.

You don't have to have a "total believe in the purity of weapons" to recognize that military tech is a regrettable but necessary thing for a nation to pursue.

> You don't have to have "total belief in the purity of weapons"...

Of course. My point was, it is insane for those who do.

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

#403

Post by Barrin92 »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #399
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…

A megacorp is made up of people. So it's people who are fundamentally evil. The main thing here I think is anonymity through numbers and complexity. You and thousands of others just want to see the numbers go up. And that desire is what ultimately influences decisions like this. If google stock dropped because of this then google wouldn't do it. But it is the actions of humans in aggregate that keeps it up. Megacorpo…

>A megacorp is made up of people. So it's people who are fundamentally evil.

That is to make a mistake of composition. An entity can have properties that none of its parts have. A cube made out of bricks is round, but none of the bricks are round. You might be evil, your cells aren't evil.

It's often the case that institutions are out of alignment with its members. It can even be the case that all participants of an organization are evil, but the system still functions well. (usually one of the arguments for markets, which is one such system). When creating an organization that is effectively the most basic task, how to structure it such that even when its individual members are up to no good, the functioning of the organization is improved.

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

#404

Post by skulk »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #152
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you could put that on the U.S.'s plate and no doubt America has caused many issues around the world, but I think in generally its a good actor. Biggest conflicts today: Ukraine -- I would squarely put this on Russia, nothing to do with the U.S.; Sudan -- Maybe lack of knowledge, but I don't think it's fair to place much responsibility on the U.S. (esp relative to other actors); ditto DRC/Rwanda Yes, many defe…

> but I think in generally its a good actor. There are many 'interesting' event that happened because of the invasion of irak, looking for weapon of mass destruction that never existed. This led to the destabilization of the entire middle east, several war and ISIS. One could say that the unconditional support to the israelian policy in middle east since 1950 also brought it's load of conflicts. The whole south Ameri…

> I mean it would be much faster to stay what good impact had the usa foreign policy on the world in the last 100 year.

It could have wondrously good impacts, but that only matters in a moral framework where good actions morally cancel out bad ones.

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

#405

Post by energy123 »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #399
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…

A megacorp is made up of people. So it's people who are fundamentally evil. The main thing here I think is anonymity through numbers and complexity. You and thousands of others just want to see the numbers go up. And that desire is what ultimately influences decisions like this. If google stock dropped because of this then google wouldn't do it. But it is the actions of humans in aggregate that keeps it up. Megacorpo…

Not a useful framing in my view. People follow private incentives. Private incentives are by default not perfectly aligned with external stakeholders. That leads to "evil" behavior. But it's not the people or the org, it's the incentives. You can substitute other people into the same system and get the same outcome.

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

#406

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #329
dgfitz wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you can’t cope with the lies, what makes you think you’d cope with the truth? Which I guarantee you is magnitudes of order more horrifying.

What is true is already so. Owning up to it doesn't make it worse. Not being open about it doesn't make it go away. And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with. Anything untrue isn't there to be lived. People can stand what is true, for they are already enduring it.

—Eugene Gendlin

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

#407

Post by jhanschoo »

olalonde wrote: post #389
oneplane wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI can also be used to say "it wasn't us, the computer did that" and pretend it's not your fault when you kill a bunch of civilians. As for sending people in harm's way: if that were the effect, it would only apply to those "with AI". In essence, AI becomes a weapon you use to threaten someone with war since your own cost will be low and their cost will be high.

> AI can also be used to say "it wasn't us, the computer did that" and pretend it's not your fault when you kill a bunch of civilians. Not really, though. Like any tool, its misuse or failure is the responsibility of the wielder. > As for sending people in harm's way: if that were the effect, it would only apply to those "with AI". In essence, AI becomes a weapon you use to threaten someone with war since your own co…

> > AI can also be used to say "it wasn't us, the computer did that" and pretend it's not your fault when you kill a bunch of civilians.

I don't think the entities that are using it in this way care.

https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/13/medicare-advantage-plans...

https://www.hfma.org/revenue-cycle/denials-management/health...

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24151437/ai-israel-gaza-w...

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

#408

Post by Sabinus »

lmm wrote: post #259
aydyn wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Resusal to make or use AI-enabled weapons is not "making war slightly expensive for yourself", it's like giving up on the Manhattan project because the product is dangerous.

Feels good but will lead to disaster in the long run.

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

#409

Post by asdfman123 »

energy123 wrote: post #388
asdfman123 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think having nations competing against each other is a good thing. Governments become corrupted and collapse: it would be a shame if the only world government fell into the hands of a dictator. That being said the only way I could imagine we'd get a single world order is one country dominating everyone else, just like superpowers and regional powers dominate their respective parts of the globe. Never ever ever are…

Would you have said the same thing to people living in warring tribal societies if they hoped that local tribes would cease existing and coalesce together into a single nation state? That's bad because it reduces competition, right? But overall it was very good because tribal conflict and barriers to movement and trade act as a massive tax on anything we would both call good. Unprecedented levels of peace in Europe h…

There is a difference between consolidation to a few different powers and consolidation to just one.

Also, AFAIK all of those nations consolidated because of military conquest. Countless European wars and empires.

The EU isn't like that, but they're an alliance and not one country. You can't just leave a country like England did.

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

#410

Post by ninetyninenine »

energy123 wrote: post #405
ninetyninenine wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A megacorp is made up of people. So it's people who are fundamentally evil. The main thing here I think is anonymity through numbers and complexity. You and thousands of others just want to see the numbers go up. And that desire is what ultimately influences decisions like this. If google stock dropped because of this then google wouldn't do it. But it is the actions of humans in aggregate that keeps it up. Megacorpo…

Not a useful framing in my view. People follow private incentives. Private incentives are by default not perfectly aligned with external stakeholders. That leads to "evil" behavior. But it's not the people or the org, it's the incentives. You can substitute other people into the same system and get the same outcome.

Not useful, but ultimately true.

People have the incentive to not do evil and to do evil for money. When you abstract the evil away into 1 vote out of thousands then you abstract responsibility and everyone ends up in aggregate doing an inconsequential evil and it adds up to a big evil.

The tragedy of the commons.

Post reply on HN