Most active commenters
  • dylan604(3)

←back to thread

Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

(www.washingtonpost.com)
617 points jbegley | 17 comments | 04 Feb 25 20:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source | bottom
Show context
a_shovel ◴[04 Feb 25 20:43 UTC] No.42938313[source]▶
I initially thought that this was an announcement for a new pledge and thought, "they're going to forget about this the moment it's convenient." Then I read the article and realized, "Oh, it's already convenient."

Google is a megacorp, and while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil), they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality, and any appearance that they are is purely a marketing exercise.

replies(26): >>42938388 #>>42938489 #>>42938510 #>>42938591 #>>42938601 #>>42938609 #>>42938748 #>>42938837 #>>42938863 #>>42938964 #>>42939027 #>>42940197 #>>42940547 #>>42942188 #>>42943178 #>>42944331 #>>42945189 #>>42945931 #>>42949501 #>>42950344 #>>42950383 #>>42951161 #>>42954362 #>>42958988 #>>42960021 #>>42991061 #
1. dylan604 ◴[04 Feb 25 21:17 UTC] No.42938863[source]▶
What is Googs going to do, leave money on the table?

And if Googs doesn't do it, someone else will, so it might as well be them that makes money for their shareholders. Technically, couldn't activist shareholders come together and claim by not going after this market the leadership should be replaced for those that would? After all, share prices is the only metric that matters

replies(4): >>42938996 #>>42939042 #>>42942039 #>>42945491 #
2. r00fus ◴[04 Feb 25 21:26 UTC] No.42938996[source]▶
So "if I don't steal it someone else will"? I'd rate that as evil.
replies(2): >>42939051 #>>42939142 #
3. stevage ◴[04 Feb 25 21:29 UTC] No.42939042[source]▶
I don't buy that argument. There are things Google does better than competitors, so them doing an evil thing means they are doing it better. Also, they could be spending those resources on something less evil.
replies(2): >>42939152 #>>42941708 #
4. 1024core ◴[04 Feb 25 21:29 UTC] No.42939051[source]▶
Maybe it's more like "If I don't do this job, someone else will"...
replies(2): >>42939146 #>>42949585 #
5. dylan604 ◴[04 Feb 25 21:35 UTC] No.42939142[source]▶
If you want to take it so far off topic, then sure, go ahead with it.
replies(1): >>42941011 #
6. moralestapia ◴[04 Feb 25 21:35 UTC] No.42939146{3}[source]▶
This is the big issue that came along when stable households (mom/dad taking care of you) were replaced by fentanyl and TikTok.

Moral character is something that has to be taught, it doesn't just come out on its own.

If your parents don't do it properly, you'll be just another cog in the soulless machine to which human life is of no value.

replies(2): >>42942684 #>>42945197 #
7. dylan604 ◴[04 Feb 25 21:36 UTC] No.42939152[source]▶
Remember when the other AI companies wanted ClosedAI to stop "for humanity's sake" when all it meant was for them the catch up? None of these companies are "good". They all know that as soon as one company does it, they all must follow, so why not lead?
replies(1): >>42941575 #
8. elliotto ◴[04 Feb 25 23:44 UTC] No.42941011{3}[source]▶
I think the poster is applying your statement about leaving money on the table. Structural requirements to not leave money on the table is a Moloch results that leads to the deterioration of the system into being just stealing as much shit as possible.
9. olyjohn ◴[05 Feb 25 00:31 UTC] No.42941575{3}[source]▶
Ah yeah. Everybody else is doing it, so it must be okay to do. Fuck everything about this.
10. dzhiurgis ◴[05 Feb 25 00:43 UTC] No.42941708[source]▶
> Google does better than competitors

You need to try another search engine. Years ago...

11. gizmondo ◴[05 Feb 25 01:12 UTC] No.42942039[source]▶
Activist shareholders can claim whatever they want, at the end of the day it's just noise, founders control the company completely.
12. greenchair ◴[05 Feb 25 02:11 UTC] No.42942684{4}[source]▶
bingo. taught and reinforced with consequences.
13. ErigmolCt ◴[05 Feb 25 07:37 UTC] No.42945197{4}[source]▶
The real issue is that corporate incentives don't prioritize morality
replies(1): >>42946350 #
14. bjackman ◴[05 Feb 25 08:10 UTC] No.42945491[source]▶
This is what the parent comment _means_ IMO.

What are you are saying is: optimising for commercial success is incompatible with morality. The conclusion is that publicly traded megacorps must inevitably trend towards amorality.

So yes, they aren't "evil" but I think amorality is the closest thing to "evil" that actually exists in the real world.

15. moralestapia ◴[05 Feb 25 09:59 UTC] No.42946350{5}[source]▶
Corporations are run by people, who are not amoral.
replies(1): >>42970567 #
16. perryizgr8 ◴[05 Feb 25 15:14 UTC] No.42949585{3}[source]▶
Then let them do it. You don't do what you consider immoral.
17. ErigmolCt ◴[07 Feb 25 08:22 UTC] No.42970567{6}[source]▶
People may not be amoral, but corporate structures often incentivize behavior that prioritizes profit over morality