←back to thread

Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

(www.washingtonpost.com)
617 points jbegley | 6 comments | 04 Feb 25 20:28 UTC | HN request time: 1.044s | source | bottom
Show context
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[04 Feb 25 23:18 UTC] No.42940660[source]▶
I want to be upset over this in an exasperated expression of oddly naive "why can't we all get along?" frame of mind. I want to, because I know how I would like the world to look like, but as a species we, including myself, continually fail to disappoint when it comes nearly guaranteed self-destruction.

I want to get upset over it, but I sadly recognize the reality of the why this is not surprising to anyone. We actually have competitors in that space, who will do that and more. We already have seen some of the more horrifying developments in that area.. and, when you think about it, those are the things that were allowed to be shown publicly. All the fun stuff is happening behind closed doors away from social media.

replies(9): >>42940696 #>>42941054 #>>42941060 #>>42941115 #>>42941183 #>>42941453 #>>42941855 #>>42941871 #>>42941899 #
1. mr_00ff00 ◴[04 Feb 25 23:54 UTC] No.42941119[source]▶
Technically the US has never dropped nukes, those were atomic bombs.

Second, don’t understand how the atomic bomb argument makes sense. Germany was developing them and would have used them if it got there first.

Are you suggesting the US really is truly the only nation that would ever have used atomic weapons? That if Japan made it first they would have spared China or the US?

replies(2): >>42941203 #>>42941783 #
2. fwip ◴[05 Feb 25 00:11 UTC] No.42941337[source]▶
Nukes haven't yet wiped us out. They still may.
replies(1): >>42941556 #
3. jknoepfler ◴[05 Feb 25 00:29 UTC] No.42941556[source]▶
Survivorship Bias: the Board Game that Ends Abruptly.
4. saagarjha ◴[05 Feb 25 00:49 UTC] No.42941783[source]▶
Care to explain how an atomic bomb is not a nuke?
replies(1): >>42941895 #
5. FeteCommuniste ◴[05 Feb 25 00:58 UTC] No.42941895{3}[source]▶
Atom bombs are definitely nukes. Maybe the GP was thinking of thermonuclear (fission-fusion) weapons.
replies(1): >>42957268 #
6. aeonik ◴[06 Feb 25 00:11 UTC] No.42957268{4}[source]▶
Depends on the circles you run in, but I've heard people distinguish nuclear bombs from atomic bombs, kind of like how atomic clocks are distinguished from nuclear clocks.

I don't quite understand it because atomic clocks deal with the electrons, while nuclear clocks, nuclear bombs, and thermo-nukes are all dealing with the nucleus of the atom.

I've always preferred fission vs fusion bomb, or nuke vs. thermo nuke.