Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.

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”.

Who should develop autonomous weapons?

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.

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?

> 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.