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

541–550 of 567 posts

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

#541

Post by webspinner »

int_19h wrote: post #372
Ekaros wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes that's definitely newspeak! It's also the reason why I run adblock. It's gotten me in trouble a few times with streaming services, they don't love it. I still run it.

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

#542

Post by webspinner »

normalaccess wrote: post #187
Ekaros wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Advertising is just the surface layer—the excuse. Digital ads rely on collecting as much personal data as possible, but that data is the real prize. This creates a natural partnership with intelligence agencies: they may not legally collect the data themselves, but they can certainly buy access. This isn’t new. Facebook, for example, received early funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, and its origins…

It's been happening since the invention of the internet. Wait, probably because that's where it came from. OK OK not the web itself, but first there was ARPANET.

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

#543

Post by robocat »

roca wrote: post #437
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'm also on the 39% marginal income tax rate in New Zealand. That income tax rate isn't the problem. Keeping $60K out of every $100K extra salary I make is plenty of motivation to work harder to make the extra $100K... especially because the taxes paid aren't burned, they mostly go to things I care about. The income tax rate isn't all that relevant to the costs and benefits of starting a company, so I don't understan…

> For example, it would be fairer if the years I worked for no income created tax-deductible losses against future income.

Hard to avoid cheaters.

A policy could be that the government could pay for 2 years of current salary and you only get one chance per person -- however I can't imagine how the government could get that into the budget.

The policy I implied is be to reward winners with a tax break to offset their risk. Difficult to sell to any voters that don't understand risk/reward or voters that believe business owners are greedy worthless bâtards.

Ha: if the business fails you lose money (the wages you didn't receive), and if the business wins you are taxed: "Privatise the losses, socialise the gains" ;)

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

#544

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

dgfitz wrote: post #370
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If who can’t cope with what lies? Yes, the truth would also stink. I’m sure it’s also horrifying.

The general you, the reader.

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

#545

Post by dleink »

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…

Google is a special case because they specifically removed the "Don't Be Evil" clause, therefore, I can only assume they are in fact fundamentally "evil"

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

#546

Post by h0l0cube »

Retric wrote: post #537
h0l0cube wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…”

Being pushed in front of a bus would be rather unpleasant.

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

#547

Post by ein0p »

hedora wrote: post #522
ein0p wrote: post #466

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?

I don’t know anyone in the US that supports genocide. The Trump voters I’ve heard seem to not understand what is currently happening with the administration. Similarly, the pro-Israel folks seem to not realize how bad the ethnic cleansing campaign is. Anyway, the US is significantly less safe than it was last month.

You don't know many Christians then. Some of the more religious folks I know are 100% in favor of sending Palestinian kids through woodchippers. As are both wings of the US government. And people who aren't in favor of that can always be brought to heel if they are in position of any authority, as illustrated by Musk's recent forced conversion to the cause, and anti-1st amendment bipartisan legislation currently sailing through Congress. "Rules based world order" is not what people think it is.

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

#548

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

zeroq wrote: post #417
normalaccess wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is just the surface layer—the excuse. Digital ads rely on collecting as much personal data as possible, but that data is the real prize. This creates a natural partnership with intelligence agencies: they may not legally collect the data themselves, but they can certainly buy access. This isn’t new. Facebook, for example, received early funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, and its origins…

Years ago a friend working in security told me that every telco operator in Elbonia has to have a special room in their HQ that's available 24/7 to some goverment officials. Men in black come and go as they please, and while what is actually happening in that room remains a mystery, they can tap straight to the system from within with no restrictions or traceability. Growing up in soviet bloc I took that story at fac…

Magagagia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Allallarmia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichere_Inter-Netzwerk_Archite...

(Really süperspeciälly VPN-hardware used to securely suck data out of ISPs with extradeutsche Gründlichkeit,

mandatory to be installed by law,

just in case,

for some random chase.)

Edit: Thinking of it this is bubbling up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_Complex ,

where Magagagia built some little base just 'a stones throw' away from Allallarmias former monopol government Telcos early internet exchange and HQ .

( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernmeldetechnisches_Zentralam... )

What are the odds?

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

#549

Post by Aeolun »

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…

I heard megacorps described a while ago as “a sentient pile of money”, which seems pretty much correct. Money has no morals.

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

#550

Post by robertlagrant »

Retric wrote: post #539
robertlagrant wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think it's the default. Lots of people think about what they do, in my experience. If you think ICBMs are purely bad, fair enough, but I imagine lots of people believe they - particularly when not fired - perform a vital defensive service, and are worth working on for that reason.
Post reply on HN