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

221–230 of 308 posts

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

#221

Post by kube-system »

throwup238 wrote: post #194
joshuamorton wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Governments negotiate their own contracts with their own terms of service. That’s one of the hoops government contractors jump through.

Not only that, but some of the contractual terms are defined by federal acquisition law, et al.

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

#222

Post by caycep »

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…

I was going to post about whether there were still "laws" in the US, but this post gets the point across much better

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

#223

Post by trhway »

WarmWash wrote: post #187
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.

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 th…

>So no one except them tells them what they can or cannot do.

you're missing "laundering the responsibility" approach - find a lawyer who writes that the thing is legal in his opinion, and voila.

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

#225

Post by kube-system »

josefx wrote: post #139
orochimaaru wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it morally wrong for a US citizen to work with their government?

What makes you think that Googles AI experts are US citizens?

100% of the Google employees who would be working on "classified AI work" are US citizens by law.

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

#227

Post by joshuamorton »

throwup238 wrote: post #194
joshuamorton wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Governments negotiate their own contracts with their own terms of service. That’s one of the hoops government contractors jump through.

I want to be clear, I agree. I have no objection to unique government contracts. I'm specifically curious about GPs position that a government contractor should be (ethically?) bound from putting contractual obligations on government use of their service.

Like the various ai providers limit lawful use like creating AI pornography. I think it would be reasonable to keep a contractual restriction against that even when working with the government.

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

#228

Post by thayne »

throwup238 wrote: post #194
joshuamorton wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Governments negotiate their own contracts with their own terms of service. That’s one of the hoops government contractors jump through.

That's fine as long as the company can choose they don't like those terms and refuse to do business. But in this case the government threatened, and carried out the threat, of classifying Anthropic as a "supply chain threat" if they didn't agree to the government's terms.

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

#229

Post by Ritewut »

threepts wrote: post #201
Ritewut wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. I'm noting that Google could fight this. They just won't.

I still disagree with your point Google having enough power to supersede the democratic process. If they have "good will" and fight back, someone else will take their place.

The idea that if I don't do it, then someone else will doesn't excuse you from making unethical decisions.

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

#230

Post by thisisauserid »

ddtaylor wrote: post #185
thisisauserid wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Got it. It's immoral because you said so.
Post reply on HN