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

461–470 of 567 posts

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

#461

Post by ErigmolCt »

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.

The real issue is that corporate incentives don't prioritize morality

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

#463

Post by vasco »

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

Not all is bad, it's preferable to have autonomous systems killing each other than killing humans. If it gets very prevalent you could even get to a point where war is just simulated war games. Why have an AI piloted F-35 fight a AI piloted J-36? Just do it on the computer. It's at least 1 or 2 less pilots that die in that case.

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

#464

Post by hedora »

ErigmolCt wrote: post #459

That makes me sad. Yet Google's shift here isn't surprising... It's part of the broader trend of big tech aligning more closely with government. But the real question is does this shift make AI development more accountable or does it just normalize AI's role in warfare and surveillance under the guise of "democratic values"?

That boat already sailed. AI and digital surveillance have been key components of US funded genocide campaigns since at least 2023:

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/14/1218643254/israel-is-using-an...

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

#466

Post by ein0p »

Google in 2000: "Do no evil". Google in 2025: "Genocide is profitable". I wonder what Google users outside the US think about this in particular? Our "national security" could be their "national danger" after a single presidential term. Do they want to keep giving Google their money?

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

#467

Post by bjackman »

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

This is what the parent comment _means_ IMO.

What are you are saying is: optimising for commercial success is incompatible with morality. The conclusion is that publicly traded megacorps must inevitably trend towards amorality.

So yes, they aren't "evil" but I think amorality is the closest thing to "evil" that actually exists in the real world.

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

#469

Post by suraci »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #447
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…

> Ukraine -- I would squarely put this on Russia, nothing to do with the U.S. Every kinetic reaction by Russia in Georgia and Ukraine is downstream of major destabilizing non-kinetic actions by the US. You don't think the US fomenting revolutions in Russia's near-abroad was in any way a contributing factor to Russian understanding of the strategic situation on its western border? [1] You don't think the US unilateral…

tbo I'm really glad that other americans aren't as wise and calm as you are.

otherwise, we may be surrounded by both the US and Russia

or, maybe, the current situation is the result of decisions made after careful consideration at the time, by whom deeply understand all you said now.

maybe, they just considered... EU is also a threat to them, they don't want a united europe, so a conflict between two enemies... is just fine? an angry russia will make EU more united(with the US)

Post reply on HN