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

Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#631

Post by nafizh »

chrisseaton wrote: post #575
kiliantics wrote: post #484

And this is why tech workers need to unionise. This petition is a weak statement that probably will have no effect. Unless these workers could pose a real threat to Google by threatening a strike action, Google has no need to change anything. Furthermore, if the workers really stood by their moral convictions, they'd use their collective power to tackle the issue more directly than by just appealing to Google. Compan…

> A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions. But this seems an amoral thing to do, to me! A small group of unelected, unaccountable and non-diverse people abusing their relative power to try to force a democratically elected government or private company to do something? Why would anyone want that?

'a democratically elected government or private company' is the same thing? Workers of a private company should have a say in the doings of the company.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#632

Post by chrisseaton »

deciplex wrote: post #624
chrisseaton wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions. But this seems an amoral thing to do, to me! A small group of unelected, unaccountable and non-diverse people abusing their relative power to try to force a democratically elected government or private company to do something? Why would anyone want that?

This post seems like it was probably sarcasm but I can't tell. Just in case, though: we already have that.

My post wasn't sarcasm.

Nobody thinks the current system is perfect or not vulnerable to corruption or special interests etc, but at least it attempts to be representative of the people and accountable, and to be well informed through intelligence networks and professional analysis.

A dictatorship of a union of Google employees forcing the hand of the government based on what they're angry about from Twitter doesn't even bother to make a pretense of being fair.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#633

Post by rdtsc »

goldenkey wrote: post #259
rdtsc wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how you look at it. What was the purpose. Presumably after fighting in the Revolutionary War the goal was not to give people hunting privileges, they had something else in mind. From that point of view, maybe RPGs should be allowed, but so should attack helicopters, surveillance capabilities, private spy satellites, etc. > IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk…

That flamethrower is awesome. What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't?

> What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't?

It can be more effective at clearing bunkers and closed rooms? The military were using these in WWII for trenches, bunkers, clearing brush. My friend's grandpa in US was operating one in the Pacific during WWII.

I just brought it was an example how something potentially more deadly than guns or RPGs is not much regulated and how laws are not very rational sometimes.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#634

Post by chrisseaton »

nafizh wrote: post #631
chrisseaton wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions. But this seems an amoral thing to do, to me! A small group of unelected, unaccountable and non-diverse people abusing their relative power to try to force a democratically elected government or private company to do something? Why would anyone want that?

'a democratically elected government or private company' is the same thing? Workers of a private company should have a say in the doings of the company.

> Workers of a private company should have a say in the doings of the company.

But the person I replied to advocated them abusing that say to undermine an elected government.

They weren't just saying 'Google should not have the government as a customer' they were saying 'Google should have the government as a customer and then deliberately abuse that to force their political agenda'.

> A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions.

See the difference? That's not 'we don't want to be involved in this, thanks'. It's 'we're going to abuse our position of power to get you to do what we want rather than what the voters' representative want'.

And I'd gently suggest that if you think this would be fine, it's just because they happen to have the same politics as you, which would be lucky for you, but beware it may change.

What if the Google union forced the government to bomb Yemen, instead to not bomb Yemen?

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#635

Post by spynxic »

bmelton wrote: post #614
mattwad wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think the 2nd amendment is under assault? If you look at the list of things our youth were marching for[1], it doesn't say anything about taking guns away. Just like you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater, you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon. Also, there's no way in hell any group of citizens can fight the US army these days so it seems like a moot point.…

You state: > you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon Generally speaking, this statement speaks to a lack of information regarding what semi-automatic is or what it means. Most firearms sold today are semi-automatic. Banning semi-automatic firearms bans the majority of firearms. That you later go on to state "You don't need automatic weapons to defend..." implies to me that…

> Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater".

I thought the 'mistake' would be assuming that this action is prohibited even in the event of a fire.

Now I question if it is assumed to apply unconditionally, even during a fire. And if so, what is the appropriate way to deal with such an event

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#636

Post by ocdtrekkie »

cromwellian wrote: post #466
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, they know few to none of these petitioners will quit. 3,000 petition signatures will do nothing. 3,000 resignations would, but Googlers aren't going to pass up on the high paychecks, three five-star meals a day, and massages in the office based on moral grounds. (In the same vein, Google's NetPAC has been quietly donating the max to Republicans like Paul Ryan and Steve Scalise, while most of their engineers o…

That’s generally not how collective bargaining works. After petition, the next step would be a strike, not mass resignations. Then if there is no resolution between management and labor, there will be terminations and regulations. Perhaps before going to premature conclusions, it might be worthwhile to wait and see how management reacts.

There really isn't a formal structure for this yet, is there? AFAIK, Googlers aren't unionized, though I definitely know a few interested that are in being so.

I am also curious if you know of prior examples of strikes being on moral grounds, I usually associate a strike with demands for employee rights or compensation, not corporate behavior.

This starts to move past the edge of my zone of knowledge, I've never been union, my knowledge of them is relatively basic.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#637

Post by bmelton »

rjsw wrote: post #313
treebeard901 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classification of cryptography as munitions was an interesting choice. The first amendment may protect domestic encryption capabilities as stated by the wikipedia article. From a legal standpoint, does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? As information becomes weaponized, it's an interesting thought. The first amendment is arguably more vulnerable these days, so I…

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to foreigners. Classifying encryption as a munition meant that I have never truthfully answered all the visa waiver questions on entering the US.

Fischer v Massachussetts[1] (and other cases won by the second amendment foundation) holds that resident aliens are counted amongst "the people" for purposes of second amendment protection (and other rights too!)

[1] - http://ia800500.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135...

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#638

Post by mkempe »

hpcjoe wrote: post #570
mkempe wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the entire Bill of Rights in fact pertains to our inalienable, universal rights. There is no difference from what one may term "fundamental" or "human" rights. It doesn't matter what the UN or anyone in other countries say or talk about -- just as the laws of physics are facts regardless of what some people may say or feel. If we have the right to life, we have the right to self-defense. If we have the right to…

FWIW, and I use this example in discussions with non-scientists all the time, Newtonian Gravity, aka the "Law of Gravity", not only isn't a fact, it isn't even correct. General relativity appears to be a closer approximation to nature, as Sir Arthur Eddington demonstrated in 1919[1], and Albert Einstein put forth in 1915[2]. That writers continue to conflate the definition of legal "law" with scientific "law" is in s…

You're muddying the water and completely missing the point:

Facts are what they are, regardless of what people may say or feel about them. The laws of physics, such as Ohm's Law, can be discovered and are facts even were people to deny their validity. The same is true for all facts of nature, including the nature of humans and their rights.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#640

Post by geodel »

magneticnorth wrote: post #186
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, they know few to none of these petitioners will quit. 3,000 petition signatures will do nothing. 3,000 resignations would, but Googlers aren't going to pass up on the high paychecks, three five-star meals a day, and massages in the office based on moral grounds. (In the same vein, Google's NetPAC has been quietly donating the max to Republicans like Paul Ryan and Steve Scalise, while most of their engineers o…

I know at least one Googler who really will quit if Google continues to contribute to drone warfare research. Yes, they like the high paychecks, five-star meals and massages, but the market for ML and AI experts is very strong right now. The high paycheck can be matched elsewhere, and the benefits of not contributing to drone warfare research are worth spending a bit of that money on food and massages. But as I said,…

Respect to that one Googler. But are those 3000 in the category of experts which would hurt Google if they leave.

I am doubtful that paycheck can be match elsewhere in companies which are more morally upright than Google. However if it is single issue protest about military but acts regarding user data usage, financial, environmental or other type of dodgy behavior is okay then these people can definitely move on to different employers.

Post reply on HN