←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: 0s | source
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 #
mkolodny ◴[05 Feb 25 00:59 UTC] No.42941899[source]▶
A vague “stuff is happening behind closed doors” isn’t enough of a reason to build AI weapons. If you shared a specific weapon that could only be countered with AI weapons, that might make me feel differently. But right now I can’t imagine a reason we’d need or want robots to decide who to kill.

When people talk about AI being dangerous, or possibly bringing about the end of the world, I usually disagree. But AI weapons are obviously dangerous, and could easily get out of control. Their whole point is that they are out of control.

The issue isn’t that AI weapons are “evil”. It’s that value alignment isn’t a solved problem, and AI weapons could kill people we wouldn’t want them to kill.

replies(4): >>42941949 #>>42942109 #>>42942160 #>>42942495 #
siltcakes ◴[05 Feb 25 01:03 UTC] No.42941949[source]▶
I agree. I don't think there's really a case for the US developing any offensive weapons. Geographically, economically and politically, we are not under any sort of credible threat. Maybe AI based missile defense or something, but we already have a completely unjustified arsenal of offensive weapons and a history of using them amorally.
replies(2): >>42942029 #>>42942045 #
scottyah ◴[05 Feb 25 01:11 UTC] No.42942029[source]▶
Without going too far into it, if we laid down all offensive weapons the cartels in Mexico would be inside US borders and killing people within a day.
replies(1): >>42942057 #
siltcakes ◴[05 Feb 25 01:13 UTC] No.42942057[source]▶
You think the cartels aren't attacking us because we have missiles that can hit Mexico? I don't agree. Somewhat tangentially, the cartels only exist because the US made recreational drugs illegal.
replies(1): >>42942234 #
1. scottyah ◴[05 Feb 25 01:27 UTC] No.42942234{3}[source]▶
Not sure where the missiles came from, you said all offensive weapons so in my mind I was picturing basic firearms. Drug trade might be their most profitable business but I think you're missing a whole lot of cultural context by saying the US's policy on drugs is their sole reason for existing. Plenty of cartels deal in sex trafficking, kidnapping, extortion, and even mining and logging today.