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

531–540 of 567 posts

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

#531

Post by krapp »

iteratethis wrote: post #530
NemoNobody wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. So... when the Russian tanks start rolling on the way to Berlin and Chinese troops are marching along that nice new (old) road they finished fixing up - otw to Europe, so if that happens, which looks possible - you think there will be no West?? If the world is to be divided Europe is the lowest hanging and sweetest fruit. I think there will still be West even if there is a King in the US demanding fealty to pa…

I mean there will be no West as we currently know it. The US is now a hostile state to former allies that collectively make up what we call the West. Thus the West disintegrates. Each disintegrated part will of course defend itself in case of war, but other scenarios are possible. For example, the EU could actually move closer towards China for trade. When the US threatens allies with economic disruption or even an i…

There will still be a West, it just won't include the United States.

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

#532

Post by impossiblefork »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #9

Other countries will use AI for weapons - shouldn’t the EU and US also do that to remain competitive?

Yes, but there should probably be some kind of separation between the AI weapons and surveillance parts and something having to do with providing communications and search services.

It's not really appropriate for an AI weapons firm to be an integrated part of something which has access to information from which sensitive information such political beliefs etc. can be easily extracted.

It's a problem if someone is looking at sensitive user data one day and at how to categorize people so they can be put on kill lists the other.

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

#533

Post by iteratethis »

krapp wrote: post #531
iteratethis wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean there will be no West as we currently know it. The US is now a hostile state to former allies that collectively make up what we call the West. Thus the West disintegrates. Each disintegrated part will of course defend itself in case of war, but other scenarios are possible. For example, the EU could actually move closer towards China for trade. When the US threatens allies with economic disruption or even an i…

There will still be a West, it just won't include the United States.

Well, yes, that's what I was saying. But a West without the US is not a tiny change.

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

#534

Post by danans »

janalsncm wrote: post #521
danans wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with this is that if companies are just profit maximizers then one of the things it should do is to realign the government What do you think is happening right now?

What is happening is the US is reaping what it sowed 45 years ago with Reagan-era privatization and short-term thinking. It is structurally incapable of executing plans which take more than 2-4 years. So any adversary can outmaneuver the US by simply planning on longer timelines. Oh look, China has 5 year plans. Of course the efficiency of a one party state comes at the cost of stability: there are no internal checks…

But at this moment what's happening is that Capital is completing what Reagan started by finalizing the realignment of government totally toward its interests, at the expense of labor and the precariat. But sure, it all started a while back.

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

#535

Post by robocat »

tanjtanjtanj wrote: post #511
robocat wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a cliche you hear from right winger in any country that has a progressive tax system Not a cliché - a fact. I'll explain to you. The incentive structure of progressive taxation is wrong: it only works for the few percent that are extremely money hungry: the few that are willing to work for lower and lower percentage gains. Normal people say "enough" and they give up once they have the nice house and a few t…

I’ve seen a lot of people in European countries and former European colonies decry the high tax rate as a reason for low entrepreneurship and just accepted it as a good enough reason but looking at the numbers and the reasoning specifically here made me start questioning things. The marginal rate in NZ is 39%!? That’s LOWER than in California, the land of “serial entrepreneurship”, for anyone with a successful startu…

Mentioning "myriad of other small taxes" in California just shows your unbalanced bias: NZ has a myriad of other costs that California doesn't.

Sales tax 15%, 91 petrol USD5.34/gallon, means testing for many things, no tax friendly retirement savings (IRAs/ROTHs whatever). Auckland housing is less affordable than San Francisco https://www.visualcapitalist.com/least-affordable-cities-to-...

I pay for private healthcare insurance because I want better outcomes than waiting for years to get urgent surgery. I have seen loved ones literally killed by our healthcare system (unnecessary death - not just normal risks of medicine). Our public health system is good when it works but it has some sharp edges. Although I assume poor NZers are better off than poor Californians for heathcare access.

> It sounds more like an excuse to keep doing what you already wanted to do rather than an actual demotivating factor.

I am telling you that it demotivates me. We don't always know why we think things and I don't have to be perfectly rational. You might be right, but calling it an excuse is extremely rude.

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

#536

Post by iteratethis »

I'm afraid ethics have nothing to do with it.

If a major force does not add AI capabilities to their military, the others will. It's a new cold war arms race. So you have to do it. There is no ethical discussion to be had where the outcome is that you refuse to do this on moral grounds.

So when you have to do it, there's only a few candidates that can. Google is the logical choice as it has the least business in China, unlike Microsoft.

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

#537

Post by Retric »

h0l0cube wrote: post #491
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…

> being willing to do anything for money has historically been categorized as evil behavior Even megacorps will do categorically good things if it helps their bottom line.

We judge morality when there’s some meaningful downside and people at their worst, because a little unpleasantness can dramatically outweigh a lot of nice behavior.

“I love hanging out with Tim he’s a funny guy helped me move a couch last week, kind of which he hadn’t pushed me in front of that bus that one time but ehh I doubt he’d do that again…”

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

#538

Post by aeonik »

FeteCommuniste wrote: post #304
saagarjha wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain how an atomic bomb is not a nuke?

Atom bombs are definitely nukes. Maybe the GP was thinking of thermonuclear (fission-fusion) weapons.

Depends on the circles you run in, but I've heard people distinguish nuclear bombs from atomic bombs, kind of like how atomic clocks are distinguished from nuclear clocks.

I don't quite understand it because atomic clocks deal with the electrons, while nuclear clocks, nuclear bombs, and thermo-nukes are all dealing with the nucleus of the atom.

I've always preferred fission vs fusion bomb, or nuke vs. thermo nuke.

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

#539

Post by Retric »

robertlagrant wrote: post #496
Retric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your defense is trying to argue about what’s evil, you’ve already lost. Putting money before other considerations is what’s evil. What’s “possible” expands based on your morality it doesn’t contract. If being polite makes a sale you’re going to find a lot of polite sales people, but how much are they willing to push that expended warrantee? > Sorry I'd be less evil but if I gave up my position as an evil henchman…

> I’ve constrained what I’m willing to do and who I’m willing to work for based on my morality, have you? And if not, consider what that say about you… This sort of discussion gets a bit tricky because it often turns out one person is not having a discussion; they're trying to advertise something about themselves.

I’m not really judging other people here. I remember working on a project and realizing I was one of those cogs keeping ICBM’s operating and it really just hit home.

Not thinking anything about who you’re working for is just kind of the default. However, IMO if you do feel something is wrong then that’s when the obligation to carry through comes in.

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

#540

Post by webspinner »

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…

Right! I was going to say something like that. Google is in all honesty, corrupt. Then again, most big corporations are this way. Google and Microsoft seem to be a bit more than others, though.
Post reply on HN