61–70 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it morally compromising to work with the military of the country you live in?
We can all agree that working for the Nazi government’s military would be morally compromising, right? You propose that other governments militaries would not be so compromising. Seems reasonable. But the question then becomes, what is the operative distinction between the two?
> We remain committed to the private and public sector consensus that AI should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weaponry without appropriate human oversight. And starts the lying to our faces. The public and private (from your own employees!) consensus is that it should not be used for those things at all, regardless of “human oversight.”
So the rest of the world is fine to spy on, its the domestic part they don't agree with. So go on, destroy lives all around the world, helping the powers at be build the fascist state. Its fine to use Gemini to tell what building to blow up; its fine for Gemini to wrongly identify people and cause hundreds or thousands of deaths based on the telling the military who to attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not morally wrong per-se but just because you are working with your government does not mean what you’re doing is necessarily moral
Just because you are working with your government does not mean what you’re doing is necessarily immoral, either.
Who could have seen this one coming. From yesterday: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-ai-pentagon-classified-u... ("Hundreds of Google workers urge CEO to refuse classified AI work with Pentagon"). Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.
Why is it morally wrong for a US citizen to work with their government?
So if you live in the US and don’t want one government agency in the US to have this power (that is ambiguous under current law), one way you can try to avoid it is by refusing to sell it to them and urging others to do the same.
It’s a long shot sure, but it certainly seems more effective than hoping the legislature wakes up and reigns in the executive these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thankfully Russia, China, etc have the same qualms as we do in the United States and will refused to send their brightest engineers to work on weapons so they don't become "morally compromised"!!!
I don't know if you're being sarcastic(sounds like you are!) but indeed a lot of engineers left Russia after the war in Ukraine started as they didn't want to be drafted and didn't want to contribute to the war effort in some way, even if indirectly. Of course, many stayed or even willingly help. See how many engineers from Iran work abroad too, for moral and other reasons. The point is - this happens everywhere, it'…
Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can all agree that working for the Nazi government’s military would be morally compromising, right? You propose that other governments militaries would not be so compromising. Seems reasonable. But the question then becomes, what is the operative distinction between the two?
[flagged]
See also the new national sport of hunting for fishing boats off the South American coast. Is that "lawful?"
And yes, since you went there: everything the Nazis did was "lawful." To the extent it wasn't "lawful," they made it "lawful."
Lawful is meaningless in the context of the Trump administration. Should Google waver (which they won't), they'll be declared a supply chain risk or otherwise bullied into submission.
Who could have seen this one coming. From yesterday: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-ai-pentagon-classified-u... ("Hundreds of Google workers urge CEO to refuse classified AI work with Pentagon"). Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.
Why is it morally wrong for a US citizen to work with their government?
Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?