←back to thread

Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

(www.washingtonpost.com)
617 points jbegley | 5 comments | 04 Feb 25 20:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
tmnvdb ◴[04 Feb 25 23:14 UTC] No.42940589[source]▶
Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.
replies(10): >>42940656 #>>42940666 #>>42940969 #>>42940977 #>>42941357 #>>42941474 #>>42941623 #>>42941755 #>>42941872 #>>42944147 #
ckrapu ◴[04 Feb 25 23:18 UTC] No.42940656[source]▶
There is a wide range of moral and practical opinions between the statement “all weapons are evil” and “global corporations ought not to develop autonomous weapons”.
replies(3): >>42940711 #>>42940795 #>>42941137 #
cortesoft ◴[04 Feb 25 23:55 UTC] No.42941137[source]▶
Who should develop autonomous weapons?
replies(2): >>42941302 #>>42942035 #
IIAOPSW ◴[05 Feb 25 00:08 UTC] No.42941302{3}[source]▶
Who should develop biological weapons? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons?

Ideally no one, and if the cost / expertise is so niche that only a handful of sophisticated actors could possibly actually do it, then in fact (by way of enforceable treaty) no one.

replies(3): >>42941546 #>>42941549 #>>42947911 #
1. aydyn ◴[05 Feb 25 00:29 UTC] No.42941546{4}[source]▶
So in other words, cede military superiority to your enemies? Come on you already know the rational solution to prisoner's dilemma, MAD, etc.

> enforceable treaty

How would you enforce it after you get nuked?

replies(1): >>42941650 #
2. lmm ◴[05 Feb 25 00:38 UTC] No.42941650[source]▶
> in other words, cede military superiority to your enemies?

We're talking about making war slightly more expensive for yourself to preserve the things that matter, which is a trade-off that we make all the time. Even in war you don't have to race for the bottom for every marginal fraction-of-a-percent edge. We've managed to e.g. ban antipersonnel landmines, this is an extremely similar case.

> How would you enforce it after you get nuked?

And yet we've somehow managed to avoid getting into nuclear wars.

replies(3): >>42941717 #>>42943347 #>>42945807 #
3. pixl97 ◴[05 Feb 25 00:43 UTC] No.42941717[source]▶
Because after proliferation the cost would be too great and nukes other than wiping cities aren't that useful

AI on the other hand seems to be very multi purpose

4. Sabinus ◴[05 Feb 25 03:30 UTC] No.42943347[source]▶
Resusal to make or use AI-enabled weapons is not "making war slightly expensive for yourself", it's like giving up on the Manhattan project because the product is dangerous.

Feels good but will lead to disaster in the long run.

5. aydyn ◴[05 Feb 25 08:50 UTC] No.42945807[source]▶
> And yet we've somehow managed to avoid getting into nuclear wars.

Yes, through a massive programme of nuclear armament. In the case of AI, we should therefore...?