231–240 of 308 posts
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 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?
Ex: "Why is it morally wrong for a US citizen to work with their government?", asked the employee compiling lists of American citizens of Japanese descent to be rounded up into Internment Camps.
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…
The only reason this blew up at all was because of the insane overreach by the DoW after anthropic voiced their concern.
It was well within anthropic right to do so, as it was part of their contract.
And it would've been very understandable that the DoW balked at that, though the real issue would be the incompetence how the contract was able to get through with that in it. But with that contact in place, the only sensible action would've been to terminate the contract and move on. Frankly, nobody would've cared.
But the DoW felt it just had to go further... And their chosen action was just an insane overreach - hence the controversy.
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…
You're a country of laws, but if enforcing them takes months if not years... Then during that time, you're the wild wild west
The bottom line is in the past the US government has acquired weapons/tech with deals like "it will never be used for X purpose". However, as far as my research has shown, it has never accepted deal where said weapons or tech has self-policing features. For instance, a bomb that would refused to explode over US soil or something like that.
And it makes sense why they would refuse such deals, as it would be a security risk, or a system that could be exploited against them by an enemy.
Of course that does not make great headlines. And given the current administration and how news headlines are written these days, it makes sense this is the way this whole thing went down.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll have to live with it somewhere else. Neither HN's administrators nor readership will tolerate that kind of behavior. If you intend to participate on Hacker News over the long term, please take up the suggestion by the other poster to review the guidelines and adhere to them.
I thought what I said was borderline, but we seem to believe in free speech in this country and here in this place. And you haven't disagreed with what I said, only how I said it ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't at all. Private corporations shouldn't be telling the government what it can and can't do. That's the job of the people. You want private corporation overriding your vote?
Agree. It seems on the surface convenient right now when people think the company (or rank and file employees?) are on their political “team” but they’d get less comfortable when oil companies or other “bad” companies dictate terms to the government. “We’ll provide fuel for the military if and only if you overturn the leader of $COUNTRY” (Yes, I recognize that past military entanglements do read as favors for Big Oil…
The main issue here is that Congress is asleep at the wheel and has refused to implement any sort of guardrails around how the government is and is not allowed to use AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Seems unlikely.