Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I Left Google DeepMind

turntrout.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 186 posts

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#131

Post by nvme0n1p1 »

metalsiliconYT wrote: post #105
jodacola wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're absolutely right, that wasn't a military target—it was actually a girls school. It won't happen again!" I realize that's not a great argument and was definitely tongue-in-cheek, but given there's still a lot of debate about the accuracy of AI for far more mundane tasks, my personal perspective is that until we have LLMs and such that are truly, demonstrably far more accurate than humans, with true reasoning a…

So you would prefer weapons that cannot reason at all? > "You're absolutely right, that wasn't a military target—it was actually a girls school. It won't happen again!" Most likely this event happened due to a bad targeting system that wasn't smart enough, if it had a better llm underpinning it (assuming it had any) maybe those lives would have been saved. More reason for more smart people like the author to work on…

> So you would prefer weapons that cannot reason at all?

Um, yes? It's bad enough humans are murdering each other. At least a human can in theory be held accountable for pulling the trigger. The last thing we need is an unaccountable ralph loop reasoning about which schools and churches to bomb every time it wakes up.

> if it had a better llm underpinning it

Ah yes, the "LLMs are intelligent, you're just not using the newest fanciest model" fallacy. This time with innocent lives on the line. If only we used ChatGPT-8.9 instead of 8.8, those poor kids would still be alive today.

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#132

Post by scarecrowbob »

metalsiliconYT wrote: post #115
cogman10 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainly I don't want them because I don't want a machine instantly making life or death judgements. It might be fine if it mostly informs a human who ultimately pulls the trigger, but having that failsafe is important in keeping machines from going on killing sprees. I also want people to be held accountable when they do unjustified killings. AI weapons make it FAR too easy to simply pass off a killing as a "woopsie d…

Responsibility will always have to lie with the user, but if the weapons are more advanced and safer then why is that bad? I like that autonomous vehicles like Waymo are 10x safer then human drivers, even if a 'Machine' is making decisions.

Because they aren't "safer" for the folks getting killed.

Historically, the folks doing the murdering just don't care about the folks they kill, so "safer for the killers" isn't a win for most of us.

"More precision" isn't about killing less folks, it's about making it safer and easier for folks who kill folks to do that work.

So those of us who dislike killing don't like these tools because we consider them to be immoral.

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#133

Post by Barrin92 »

metalsiliconYT wrote: post #110
Barrin92 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just out of curiosity though why do people not want smart AI weapons? When the decision to kill another human being is made that should be in the hands of a directly accountable other human being, not an unaccountable machine developed in the basement of a private corporation. And mines, both dumb and smart, in particular anti-personell mines are banned by the Ottawa treaty ratified by 162 countries. It's exactly th…

The mines got banned because they were dumb...

no they were banned because they're persistent. That's also the US position despite not being signee to the treaty. Making autonomous weapons intelligent only makes the issue worse because at least expertise was a limiting factor for most rogue actors. Do you know what will happen to millions of autonomous drones when the Russia Ukraine war draws down? Which hands they will end up in? You've created the capacity to kill people 2k kilometers away for a thousand bucks on a chip.

And when those inevitably backfire and start blowing innocent people up, are the CEOs going to prison, the politicians who ordered their production originally? No, nobody is going to claim they're responsible, and that's why it's insane to build a weapon that does not have a name, time, place and direct order associated with it.

Even the US military is already incapable of taking responsibility of blowing a school with 150 kids up. You want to hand these people systems that are unaccountable by definition, that are smarter than they are, when they already struggle to understand the consequences of their own decisions?

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#134

Post by [deleted] »

metalsiliconYT wrote: post #64

Respect for sticking to your beliefs. Just out of curiosity though why do people not want smart AI weapons? I would much rather have an onboard AI that can discriminate between unarmed civilians and military assets, seems irresponsible to not... Is a dumb sea mine that blows up everything somehow better than a smart sea mine that knows to not blow up sometimes?

[deleted]

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#135

Post by scarecrowbob »

amazingamazing wrote: post #67

It is honorable but ultimately hasn’t democracy spoken wrt the issues mentioned in the post? For better or worse millions of Americans voted for the guy doing the deportations. I also find it difficult to reconcile not using AI for weapons. If war is inevitable AI presumably would at least ensure you are on target.

When folks who live around me vote for things I find unethical, then I don't feel bound by those decisions.

Also, your position on weapons development is premised on the idea that at lease some of the folks developing the weapons are on your side and always will be.

That might not be true at all.

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#136

Post by bigyabai »

tomrod wrote: post #9

If the author were to read these comments, I'd commiserate with them on the disappointment of the utopia left behind in the service of acquiring wealth and power. An abundant solarpunk future enabled and augmented by AI, hyped so well by early Google and Kurzweil, captured as capital to earn a buck for shareholders. Mad props for pushing as far as they could push.

Would you consider that AI isn't a necessary precursor to an abundant solarpunk utopia? A lot of that hype was fictional, for better or for worse.

We're still struggling to proliferate the techno-utopia of digital computers, the internet, and cryptocurrency too. Each time this hype gets drummed up, the utopian stakes are raised to the nines, and the delivered technology does not bring us substantially closer to a more fair or utopian society. Pessimistically, all of these technologies were used to surveil, addict and intellectually degrade society, leading to the miserable status quo we all share in.

The technology is not the problem, it seems. I'll commiserate over the longing for utopia, but new technology has never been a panacea for structurally-embedded ills.

> The mechanism of individual technologies, both actual and possible ones, does not interest me much. I would not have to look into it if man’s creative activity were free, in a godlike manner, from being polluted by unknowledge—if, now or in the future, we could fulfill our goal in the purest way possible by being able to match the methodological precision of Genesis; if, in saying “let there be light,” we could obtain as a final product light itself, without any unwanted additives. However, the previously mentioned splitting of goals, or even the replacement of one goal with another, often an undesirable one, is a classic phenomenon.

- Summa Technologiae

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#137

Post by bigyabai »

busterarm wrote: post #6
bigyabai wrote: post #2

> Even if Google had adopted your Framework, the Pentagon would have refused > I agree. xAI would still have given over their AI. But if Google had given signs of independence earlier, it could perhaps have built a coalition with OpenAI and Anthropic. This is like saying that Google and Apple might build a coalition to prevent App Store regulation. These are competitors , they all see moral flexibility as an advantag…

On the upside, I guess maybe DeepMind is hiring. ... I'm sure I'll get flamed into oblivion for this but it's weird to me how the zeitgeist is anti-colonialism but also against enforcing borders and national sovereignty. I guess maybe they are okay with it unless you're a western nation. Whatever, there's no room for nuanced opinions anymore in modern online discourse. I'll admit to being a weird outlier on this. I m…

If it's any consolation, I'd have upvoted the original version of your comment before you appended the hand-wringing about karma points and personal opinions.

It's not lacking nuance to oppose both empire politics and nationalist jingoism. I don't think that the author is wrong for holding that opinion - I just think they shouldn't have joined Google if they sincerely believed it. Their personal conviction is not going to be enough to overturn Google's policy, even if they're the LeBron James of AI research. This was a pointless exercise in getting crushed under the boot that they claim to oppose. And anyone with the ability to add two and two together could see where this was headed.

Outliers like you are what the state counts on. Morally deaf, money and status-obsessed, easily placated with remote work and fat pension payments. As the middle class shrinks and the collective insecurity of a generation expands, more people like you will trade in their morals to make a "dignified" living doing horrible things. It speaks volumes to your character, but maybe you'd have a hard time hearing it from your boat with your hearing aids turned off. It's a tricky market for people that want to make genuine positive change in the world, and money talks.

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#138

Post by pcald »

bigyabai wrote: post #2

> Even if Google had adopted your Framework, the Pentagon would have refused > I agree. xAI would still have given over their AI. But if Google had given signs of independence earlier, it could perhaps have built a coalition with OpenAI and Anthropic. This is like saying that Google and Apple might build a coalition to prevent App Store regulation. These are competitors , they all see moral flexibility as an advantag…

Working anywhere requires ethical compromise… a 2 person company can disagree on ethical questions

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#139

Post by bigyabai »

pcald wrote: post #138
bigyabai wrote: post #2

> Even if Google had adopted your Framework, the Pentagon would have refused > I agree. xAI would still have given over their AI. But if Google had given signs of independence earlier, it could perhaps have built a coalition with OpenAI and Anthropic. This is like saying that Google and Apple might build a coalition to prevent App Store regulation. These are competitors , they all see moral flexibility as an advantag…

Working anywhere requires ethical compromise… a 2 person company can disagree on ethical questions

Ethical compromise is part of participating in society, even the unemployed have to follow the law. Moral compromise is typically avoidable though, and some principled people will hold those morals equal to the value of a job.

Re: Why I Left Google DeepMind

#140

Post by butlike »

metalsiliconYT wrote: post #105
jodacola wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're absolutely right, that wasn't a military target—it was actually a girls school. It won't happen again!" I realize that's not a great argument and was definitely tongue-in-cheek, but given there's still a lot of debate about the accuracy of AI for far more mundane tasks, my personal perspective is that until we have LLMs and such that are truly, demonstrably far more accurate than humans, with true reasoning a…

So you would prefer weapons that cannot reason at all? > "You're absolutely right, that wasn't a military target—it was actually a girls school. It won't happen again!" Most likely this event happened due to a bad targeting system that wasn't smart enough, if it had a better llm underpinning it (assuming it had any) maybe those lives would have been saved. More reason for more smart people like the author to work on…

The bottom line is a human should have to fire the gun and answer for it
Post reply on HN