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

Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 308 posts

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#181

Post by bko »

mc32 wrote: post #177
bko wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer our elected officials own the manual, accepting the fact that [person I don't like] could be in power and they can re-write the rules, then a private billion dollar corporation. Especially when it comes to defense.

Ha! If the Congress did diddly squat about eavesdropping on them by organizations that aren’t supposed to spy on citizens back in the Obama days (we also spied on allies’s governments but that’s kinda what all of them do) there is no hope in them reining things back at all… for mere hoi polloi.

I guess we have to appoint Amodei and Altman as our benevolent dictators to keep Congress in check!

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#182

Post by a456463 »

ctoth wrote: post #137
jcgrillo wrote: post #4

It's pretty funny how these guys are all becoming some kind of internet version of, like, Halliburton. It seems pretty desperate. B2C and B2B applications didn't pan out I guess?

The thing is we're in a new Cold War, and most of our adversaries have gotten the memo and most of us ... haven't. Yes, becoming a new Halliburton is a rational move if you see the board right now. I don't like it even one tiny bit.

I don't like it even tiny bit. But other people are doing it, so I mma go full steam ahead.

This is exactly what got us here.

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#183

Post by bko »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #133
tombert wrote: post #5

When my sister and I would play monopoly as kids, we had lost the manual so whenever we didn’t like the outcome of whatever happened, we would make up rules about what was right. Technically then, it was very easy stay compliant while still being able to do well because we could rewrite the rules. Also, since I was older I feel like I was able to get away with those redefinitions a lot more often…

The word "lawful" always seems to get dragged out when people in power are doing some especially heinous rulemaking, like throwing a hissy fit over a single company trying to voluntarily draw a line at domestic surveillance and fully automated killchains.

A private corporation can choose not to sell to the government. A lot of them do exactly this. A lot of hoops to jump through.

However, if they do sell to the government, they shouldn't have some sneaky way to exert control over decision making using their products. We're a country of laws, and for better or for worse, these laws are made by elected officials and those appointed by elected officials.

Why an American company wouldn't want American defense to have the most capable tools at their disposal is a different matter all together, but here we are.

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#184

Post by joshuamorton »

bko wrote: post #183
smallmancontrov wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "lawful" always seems to get dragged out when people in power are doing some especially heinous rulemaking, like throwing a hissy fit over a single company trying to voluntarily draw a line at domestic surveillance and fully automated killchains.

A private corporation can choose not to sell to the government. A lot of them do exactly this. A lot of hoops to jump through. However, if they do sell to the government, they shouldn't have some sneaky way to exert control over decision making using their products. We're a country of laws, and for better or for worse, these laws are made by elected officials and those appointed by elected officials. Why an American…

> they shouldn't have some sneaky way to exert control over decision making using their products.

why not, many companies have all sorts of rules you agree to when using their products, including many legal ("lawful") things. Are you saying that the government as a client should be unbound by contractual obligations that apply to other clients?

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#185

Post by ddtaylor »

thisisauserid wrote: post #79
anematode wrote: post #28

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.

I agree that it is immoral to obey some laws. Which ones are you saying are immoral here?

An AI researcher can work anywhere they want, can't they? At the minimum they could work in a different field entirely. It seems like a false dichotomy to frame the question around laws.

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#186

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #180
sailfast wrote: post #31

This all works if you assume that any action the government takes must be “lawful”. The assumption here is that the Pentagon is obeying the law and any unlawful use would go through normal reporting / violation channels - same as any illegal order or violation or whistleblower report. The Pentagon does not want Google or anyone else deciding what they can and cannot use their AI for. They’re saying we won’t break the…

I look at this as a case of "pick your battles." In war, the civilians can't audit every move of the military. (It's impractical, both for reacting timely, and for keeping secrets from the enemy.) If the military doesn't work with Google, they will work with someone else who might not put the same amount of pressure on the military about the practical limits on AI. Or, even worse, our enemy might use a significantly…

As a private contractor, you can sign a contract to deliver pizza or bandages to US soldiers, but also put into the contract that you won't deliver lethal weapons, if that's your own ethical stance. You don't need to audit every move of the military, just the stuff you're doing at their request.

And sure, maybe that just means the military decides to take their business elsewhere. But if you have confidence that your service is the best, then you sell based on that.

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#187

Post by WarmWash »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #133
tombert wrote: post #5

When my sister and I would play monopoly as kids, we had lost the manual so whenever we didn’t like the outcome of whatever happened, we would make up rules about what was right. Technically then, it was very easy stay compliant while still being able to do well because we could rewrite the rules. Also, since I was older I feel like I was able to get away with those redefinitions a lot more often…

The word "lawful" always seems to get dragged out when people in power are doing some especially heinous rulemaking, like throwing a hissy fit over a single company trying to voluntarily draw a line at domestic surveillance and fully automated killchains.

Anthropic wanted the ability to verify compliance whereas OAI and Google are fine with "trust us". Which is how it always is, and always has been.

For better or worse, the government is the one who audits, and has it's own internal systems for self audits. So no one except them tells them what they can or cannot do. The government would never put itself in a position where civilians died because Amodei didn't like the vibe of the case being worked.

In a way it's wild that people are upset that the government didn't put a billionaire megacorp CEO in the drivers seat of intelligence.

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#189

Post by mvelbaum »

anematode wrote: post #28

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.

Any AI researcher who refuses to support his own country in a technological arms race is morally bankrupt, foolishly naive and does not deserve to enjoy the the way of life created for him by those who sacrificed their lives.

Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI

#190

Post by mvelbaum »

notJim wrote: post #122
declan_roberts wrote: post #43

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"!!!

This was the same logic that was used when building nuclear weapons, and many of the scientists involved in that tried to find a different path (most notably Niels Bohr). I think we would be in a much better world if they had been successful. It's good that we're trying again w/ LLMs.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN