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

Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 155 posts

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#51

Post by dheera »

Xeronate wrote: post #26

I understand the vision, but how does this work on a global scale. e.g. American employees refuse to build this, but China's don't. Edit: I originally ended with "What would have happened if Germany had a nuclear bomb and America didn't?", but I think it distracted from the point I was trying to make so moving this to an edit. I'm not trying to ask "is the US the bad guy". I'm trying to ask how to balance personal an…

> American employees refuse to build this, but China's don't.

It's not American employees vs. China employees. No need to villainize China at every opportunity. Most Chinese employees are more similar to American employees than you think.

It's {top candidates who have their pick of employers} have the luxury to refuse to build this.

Mid-tier dude who can't land a job at any of the top AI companies and can code with Cursor and trying to pay their rent or medical bills will absolutely build AI for the military in return for having their rent paid.

This is regardless of whether it is in the US or China.

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#53

Post by busko »

pempem wrote: post #7
bigyabai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is grandfathered into a few preexisting defense contracts. Any red lines you draw may have already been crossed.

Literally yesterday google changed how secrets work. Its very possible to introduce change.

Do you have any references for this? I'd like to know more.

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#54

Post by stevenpetryk »

tehjoker wrote: post #36
dotancohen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defending one's own country is not evil, no matter how much money Qatar pours into Western social media influencers.

It is when "defense" means invasion and subjugation of other countries. All countries pose their military operations as "defense." Inquiring minds should ask if a country surrounded on sides by two oceans with two pacified neighbors has any real threats or merely opportunities for cheap labor, market access, and mineral rights abroad. This has been going on for a very long time (read what Smedley Butler said in "War…

It's not black and white. There is an entire spectrum of completely justifiable and extremely questionable uses of military power by the US.

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#55

Post by peyton »

browningstreet wrote: post #52

Given Jeff Dean’s political activity on X, I’m guessing he’s aligned to the resistance too. Not sure the rest of management is interested in caving.

The resistance goes out the window the first time an American is gunned down by an autonomous system. They should do whatever possible to prevent that outcome.

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#56

Post by busko »

dotancohen wrote: post #24
jimmydoe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say stay, and do a subtlety bad job there.

Sabotage? You are openly advocating the internal sabotage of US defense capability?

Piggybacking on deeply integrated information and connectivity within society that was marketed and adopted under the guise of trust and an ethos of not being evil is pathetic.

Build, train, develop and maintain an AI for military if needed. When a government is scared of individuals they've clearly lost their edge.

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#57

Post by seattle_spring »

dotancohen wrote: post #22
cheonn638 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every change starts with a few people, and then it grows your opinion is defense contracts are bad my opinion is defense contracts are good who is correct? probably me since 99.9% of Googlers won’t leave over this

Why is there any controversy about defending one's nation being "good" or "bad"? I can not believe what I am reading here, and how the single comment supporting defending one's country is so heavily downvoted. Qatar has poisoned Western online communities such that all defence of the United States is considered taboo? I don't even live in the US and I am frightened by what I see here.

"Defending one's nation" and "capitulating to the people in charge like Hegseth" are very much not the same thing.

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#58

Post by andsoitis »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #47
Xeronate wrote: post #26

I understand the vision, but how does this work on a global scale. e.g. American employees refuse to build this, but China's don't. Edit: I originally ended with "What would have happened if Germany had a nuclear bomb and America didn't?", but I think it distracted from the point I was trying to make so moving this to an edit. I'm not trying to ask "is the US the bad guy". I'm trying to ask how to balance personal an…

Is there any reason to think that autonomous weapons are a critical strategic capability? It's hard to see what an unpiloted drone can do that a remotely piloted drone can't, other than perhaps human rights violations.

Faster decisions, less fatigue, etc.

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#59

Post by seattle_spring »

ecshafer wrote: post #38
miohtama wrote: post #17

"Don't do evil" Oh, wait...

Aiding the your nation is not evil, in fact its the opposite, its Good.

Aiding Hegseth / The Heritage Foundation is not aiding the US. If anything, it's the exact opposite.

Re: Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic

#60

Post by taurath »

sudonem wrote: post #9

As much as I applaud the intention, the genie has been out of the bottle on this one for many years already.

There's always this comment, saying that its useless to possibly govern or resist advancement or development or use of weapons capable of indiscriminate killing.

If the world actually worked like they believe it does, if restraint were just not possible, the world would have been destroyed at least 3 documented times over.

Don't listen to them.

Post reply on HN