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

111–120 of 567 posts

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

#111

Post by croes »

stickfigure wrote: post #81
croes wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the U.S. needs every advantage it can get to improve its defense That’s one of the reasons for the turbulent times. Let’s face the truth, most of the defense can easily be used for offense and given the state of online security every progress gets into the wrong hands. Maybe it’s time to pause to make it more difficult for those wrong hands.

Just how do you propose to remove those tools from Putin's, Xi's, Khomeini's, or Kim Jong-Un's hands?

For removal it’s too late, but maybe slowing down is still possible.

There is no advancement that won‘t end up in the wrong hands and most likely it will be a leak from an US company.

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

#112

Post by Retric »

ericmay wrote: post #106
Retric wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> made up of people People making meaningful decisions at mega corporations aren’t a random sample of the population, they are self selected to care a great deal about money and or power. Honestly if you wanted to filter the general population to quietly discover who was evil I’d have a hard time finding something more effective. It doesn’t guarantee everyone is actually evil, but actually putting your kids first is…

You'd never figure out who was "evil" because it's just based on your own interpretation of what evil is. Unless of course you want to join me as a moral objectivist? I don't think Google doing military work with the US government is evil. On the other and I think the influence and destruction caused by advertising algorithms is. Who gets to decide what is evil? I take issue with "don't blame the employees". You need…

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 someone else would do it!

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…

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

#113

Post by CrillRaver »

ericmay wrote: post #47
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…

My problem with this take is that you forget, the corporations are made up of people, so in order for the corporation to be evil you have to take into account the aggregate desires and decision making of the employees and shareholders and, frankly, call them all evil. Calling them evil is kind of a silly thing to do anyway, but you can not divorce the actions of a company from those who run and support it, and I woul…

By definition we can never know for sure, but I believe the number of people who stay silent is many times bigger than those who voice their opinion. They've learned it is unproductive (as you say) or worst case, you're told you've got it all wrong technically speaking.

Complaining is not unproductive, it signals to others they are not alone in their frustrations. Imagine that nobody ever responds or airs their frustrations; would you feel comfortable saying something about it? Maybe you're the only one, better keep quiet then. Or how do you find people who share your frustrations with whom you could organise some kind of pushback?

If I was "this government", I would love for people to shut up and just do their job, pay taxes and buy products (you don't have to buy them from megacorp, just spend it and oh yeah, goodluck finding places to buy products from non-megacorps).

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

#114

Post by ThinkBeat »

There are billions if not a trillion(s) going into defense tech. The US and its NATO allies and its wider allies who have contributed equipment to the Ukraine war they need to replenish and replace stuff.

At the same time the Ukraine war has changed a lot of the battlefield strategies that will require development of new advanced weapons. Most obviously in the areea of drones / counter-drone space. but lot of other technology as well.

With all that money of course companies will chase it. OpenAI is already joined up with Anduril.

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

#115

Post by mech422 »

ilbeeper wrote: post #99
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the middle ground is to only enforce it on corporations in exchange for the protections given to the owners. Want to make more? then take personal risk.

Great, so we only want the real high risk takers, the top gamblers,to play in the big league. Those who are so rich they no way to lose their personal comfort and are blind to the personal risk - and probably are careless about anyone's else just as well

Don't we have that already? Bootstrapped startups with the founders money on the line typically don't play in the 'big league's till way after the founder is at risk..

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

#116

Post by yodsanklai »

zoogeny wrote: post #109

It's a far cry from the days where employees were threatening to mass quit Google when it changed its policies to avoid bans in China. A lot of what is going on in the world right now makes me think we are in a war that hasn't yet been officially acknowledged.

I have a lot of respect for people who would resign, or wouldn't work in such companies.

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

#117

Post by _DeadFred_ »

zelon88 wrote: post #39
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…

You're taking about pre-Clinton consumerism. That system is dead. It used to dictate that the company who could offer the best value deserved to take over most of the market. That's old thinking. Now we have servitization. Now the business who can most efficiently offer value deserves the entire market. Basically, iterate until you're the only one left standing and then never "sell" anything but licenses ever again.

Don't forget get your stock on and index that almost all retirement funds are required to put money into every month versus the old school stock market where it was a market not a cable bill (you have to pay for the whole bundle if you want it or not).

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

#118

Post by pseudalopex »

nirav72 wrote: post #73
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…

They’re not evil, they’re amoral and are designed to maximize profits for their investors. Evil is subjective.

> They’re not evil, they’re amoral

Most people consider neglect evil in my experience.

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

#119

Post by croes »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #74
croes wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the U.S. needs every advantage it can get to improve its defense That’s one of the reasons for the turbulent times. Let’s face the truth, most of the defense can easily be used for offense and given the state of online security every progress gets into the wrong hands. Maybe it’s time to pause to make it more difficult for those wrong hands.

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…

I‘m not talking about good and bad but about naive.

„Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.“

Propaganda and disinformation were problems before the AI hype but now it got worse.

In the race for AGI they ignored the risks and didn‘t think of useful counter measures.

It’s easier to spread lies with AI than to spread the truth.

We enter dark aged where most people can’t distinguish fake from real because the faked became so convincing.

Audio, photo and video lost their evidential value.

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

#120

Post by nradov »

jsheard wrote: post #48
nradov wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landmines and cluster munitions have been among Ukraine's most effective weapons for resisting the Russian invasion. Without those, Ukraine would likely have already lost the war. It's so bizarre how some people who face no real risks themselves think that those weapons should be declared off-limits.

Nobody said they're not effective during a war, the problem is they remain effective against any random civilians who happen to stumble across them for a long time after the war is over. Potentially decades, as seen in Cambodia. It would be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory to repel an attempted takeover of your land, only for that land to end up contaminated with literally millions of landmines because you didn't have a mu…

People who are defending against an existential threat today don't have the luxury of worrying about contamination tomorrow. I think at this point Ukraine will take a Pyrrhic victory if the alternative is their end as a fully sovereign nation state. And let's be clear about the current situation: if Ukraine and Russia had a mutual agreement against using those weapons then Ukraine would probably have already lost. Landmines in particular are extremely effective as a force multiplier for outnumbered defenders.
Post reply on HN