3 ms·

Pretty telling how the money quote in the article is "And second, we determined that there were portions of the contract that were out of scope with our current

Pretty telling how the money quote in the article is "And second, we determined that there were portions of the contract that were out of scope with our current government certifications.” In other words, they couldn't meet the requirements for the RFP, so they decided it was advantageous to score some morality points by dropping out...

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Bear in mind, the "morality points" aren't on Google: They're on Google's employees. The commitment Google made for AI Principles only exists because their employees demanded it, and forced Google to end it's participation in the Pentagon's drone warfare project. Google's management are more than happy to help the government engage in illegal assassination abroad via drone, but it's employees are not. For Google's executives, this is less to gain morality points with the public, but to retain employees who would leave otherwise. Though another aspect is, they may have already gotten an indication from the DoD that dropping out of Maven would be held against them when evaluating the proposals. RFPs aren't just about the dollar value, and they'd certainly take into account the possibility of Googlers refusing to do the work needed to fulfill the contract.
- reacweb 8y ago
  I think you are right. The direction of Google are selling their soul to government in order to protect and develop the company. But a majority of the employees are still dedicated to their old motto: "Don't be evil".
- dctoedt 8y ago
  Google's high-minded employees should think about what might have happened if Nazi Germany had developed a uranium bomb first.
cromwellian 8y ago
I'm pretty sure that for $10 billion, they could have gotten whatever certifications they needed by plowing resources into it. Elon Musk went through the same to get government contracts that certification requirements tailor made for Boeing/Lockheed. Corporations are not people. Judge them by their actions, in the end, what matters is what happened, not intent. Almost every public institution's actions are always ascribed by some as driven by money or power, or others by high minded values. The employees at a company can have high minded values. Even the company culture can have high minded values. But in the end, financial decisions made by companies are amoral, and what matters is, what the decisions actually were, not whether the executives were pressured into it, because ultimately, there is pressure on all sides from all stakeholders. Giving up on $10 billion, no matter how you slice it, is a huge hit. They could have fought for it, but decided not to, based on whatever pressures they were reacting too. That's a win.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"Corporations are not people. Judge them by their actions, in the end, what matters is what happened, not intent." Oh nonsense, corporations are run by people. People who make deliberate decisions on behalf of the company. And implicit trust is bestowed upon these stewards of the company by the company's employees. I think theres a tacit understanding that these people will balance both shareholder value and ethical concerns. A such intent very much matters.
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    Intent is imputed, you can't know it for certain, or even very well. As an outside observer, employee, or shareholder, you can assign intent all you want, but at the end of the day, the only real evidence you have is action. Look, I'm a Google employee, I really like Sundar, he comes off as a pretty authentic, caring person. But what he says in "official statements", even internal communications, like every company, is very much authored by committee, by corporate messaging, by legal, it is not his voice alone. So if Sundar says he's doing something because it's morally right, should I believe that's the reason, because in less 'official' statements, in his own words, he comes off as a genuine person? Or, should I disbelieve it, because in more official communications, it comes off as overly parsed and triangulated? You face the same issue with politicians. Politicians say they truly believe one thing, they announce their intent, and then when they get into office, you find their voting records quite a bit different than what you believed them to be for. I think you should judge these politicians by their actions, not their campaign speeches, not their heartfelt fireside chats, but what -- when the rubber meets the road -- they vote for. The votes don't lie, protestations of piety can.
    - bogomipz 8y ago
      >"Intent is imputed, you can't know it for certain, or even very well." The "intent" was to win the Pentagon contract, it is not some subjective thing here. I think when a project has an internal codename and team devoted to it it's safe to assume the pursuit and desire for Pentagon business was quite certain. The rest of your comment reads like false equivalency and rationalizing.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

Bear in mind, the "morality points" aren't on Google: They're on Google's employees. The commitment Google made for AI Principles only exists because their employees demanded it, and forced Google to end it's participation in the Pentagon's drone warfare project. Google's management are more than happy to help the government engage in illegal assassination abroad via drone, but it's employees are not. For Google's executives, this is less to gain morality points with the public, but to retain employees who would leave otherwise. Though another aspect is, they may have already gotten an indication from the DoD that dropping out of Maven would be held against them when evaluating the proposals. RFPs aren't just about the dollar value, and they'd certainly take into account the possibility of Googlers refusing to do the work needed to fulfill the contract.

reacweb 8y ago
I think you are right. The direction of Google are selling their soul to government in order to protect and develop the company. But a majority of the employees are still dedicated to their old motto: "Don't be evil".
dctoedt 8y ago
Google's high-minded employees should think about what might have happened if Nazi Germany had developed a uranium bomb first.

cromwellian 8y ago

I'm pretty sure that for $10 billion, they could have gotten whatever certifications they needed by plowing resources into it. Elon Musk went through the same to get government contracts that certification requirements tailor made for Boeing/Lockheed. Corporations are not people. Judge them by their actions, in the end, what matters is what happened, not intent. Almost every public institution's actions are always ascribed by some as driven by money or power, or others by high minded values. The employees at a company can have high minded values. Even the company culture can have high minded values. But in the end, financial decisions made by companies are amoral, and what matters is, what the decisions actually were, not whether the executives were pressured into it, because ultimately, there is pressure on all sides from all stakeholders. Giving up on $10 billion, no matter how you slice it, is a huge hit. They could have fought for it, but decided not to, based on whatever pressures they were reacting too. That's a win.

bogomipz 8y ago
>"Corporations are not people. Judge them by their actions, in the end, what matters is what happened, not intent." Oh nonsense, corporations are run by people. People who make deliberate decisions on behalf of the company. And implicit trust is bestowed upon these stewards of the company by the company's employees. I think theres a tacit understanding that these people will balance both shareholder value and ethical concerns. A such intent very much matters.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  Intent is imputed, you can't know it for certain, or even very well. As an outside observer, employee, or shareholder, you can assign intent all you want, but at the end of the day, the only real evidence you have is action. Look, I'm a Google employee, I really like Sundar, he comes off as a pretty authentic, caring person. But what he says in "official statements", even internal communications, like every company, is very much authored by committee, by corporate messaging, by legal, it is not his voice alone. So if Sundar says he's doing something because it's morally right, should I believe that's the reason, because in less 'official' statements, in his own words, he comes off as a genuine person? Or, should I disbelieve it, because in more official communications, it comes off as overly parsed and triangulated? You face the same issue with politicians. Politicians say they truly believe one thing, they announce their intent, and then when they get into office, you find their voting records quite a bit different than what you believed them to be for. I think you should judge these politicians by their actions, not their campaign speeches, not their heartfelt fireside chats, but what -- when the rubber meets the road -- they vote for. The votes don't lie, protestations of piety can.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    >"Intent is imputed, you can't know it for certain, or even very well." The "intent" was to win the Pentagon contract, it is not some subjective thing here. I think when a project has an internal codename and team devoted to it it's safe to assume the pursuit and desire for Pentagon business was quite certain. The rest of your comment reads like false equivalency and rationalizing.