←back to thread

Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

(www.washingtonpost.com)
617 points jbegley | 1 comments | 04 Feb 25 20:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.341s | 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[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. cakealert ◴[05 Feb 25 00:29 UTC] No.42941549[source]▶
> Who should develop biological weapons? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons?

Anyone who wants to establish deterrence against superiors or peers, and open up options for handling weaker opponents.

> enforceable treaty

Such a thing does not exist. International affairs are and will always be in a state of anarchy. If at some point they aren't, then there is no "international" anymore.