4 ms·

Google Is on the Wrong Side of History

68 points by ta8645 2y ago

ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Previously: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42938125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42938125
busterarm 2y ago
[flagged]
- wrs 2y ago
  I’m trying to imagine how you would consider greater excellence in the field of pervasive surveillance of citizens as a measure of a “superior culture”.
- almosthere 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
    Looks like the current administration is seeking to change that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/19/trump-pentagon-budget-cuts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/19/...
    - almosthere 2y ago
      This is just things that are DOGE related. The military does not need a fleet of cybertrucks, it needs GAS based vehicles. The same idiotic policies that Biden pushed in all other executive areas are in the military too. Trump will cut the budget related to fraud, waste and abuse in the military - and likely increase the budget for sane things.
      - trhway 2y ago
        >The military does not need a fleet of cybertrucks, it needs GAS based vehicles. I suggest you take a look at FLIR videos from Ukraine, including from targeting IR cameras of various anti-tank, etc. weapons.
      - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
        Did you expect the Trump administration to align itself with the USA’s historic geopolitical adversary, and distance itself from its formal allies? Do you believe alignment with russia is what the American electorate thought they were voting for?
- dcreater 2y ago
  What an intensely adolescent take. Even with nuclear weapons, we were able to get to disarmament treaties and start undoing the damage of the arms race. This time one would hope we don't make the same mistakes again and flirt with disaster. Alas it seems history is poised to repeat itself
  - busterarm 2y ago
    Are you daft? We had a major power on the UN Security Council threaten to use nuclear weapons in their currently ongoing war as little as three months ago. Full disarmament is a myth. Some warheads are going to be maintained going into forever. That's how you deter the other guy from developing and using the same. Literally wrote my undergrad thesis on why complete nuclear disarmament is impossible 20+ years ago. Countries only wage wars that they think they can win. And every technology is a potential weapons technology.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  What are the limits of this argument? Let's say, entirely hypothetically, that our adversaries have found that weapons testing on prisoners helps them iterate better. Must we copy it? Repeat for every new level of depravity you can think of. Put another way, how is this not simply an argument that might makes right?
  - busterarm 2y ago
    "Being on the right side of history" is a really shit prize if its cost is "you're dead".
    - AlotOfReading 2y ago
      No one knows the future, so you're actually arguing the possible downside of losing justifies any actions to mitigate it, regardless of cost.
almosthere 2y ago
Naive people think that people are fundamentally good. We need military, weapons and surveillance to keep people safe. Typically the naive people are just sheltered and/or young.
- benatkin 2y ago
  That reminds me of this quote, modified: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough robots stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” It’s got a bit different of a vibe from “Don’t be evil.”
- kelvinjps10 2y ago
  No, it's typically old people that are pro military
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    Just where do all those young soldiers, sailors and pilots come from I wonder?
    - pwdisswordfishz 2y ago
      Poverty.
  - ghusto 2y ago
    You're saying the same thing?
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  People are fundamentally good. It's just a few assholes that keep us from having nice things.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    If only we got rid of <group>, we'd have a utopia because they wouldn't be around to ruin it. We could do this by putting them on the B ark.
jurenbert 2y ago
"It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?" Norm MacDonald
- mieses 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Anyone that thinks that combination of credentials is the kryptonite that our nation's security is vulnerable to should spend some time examining their media intake. Local, State, and Federal law enforcement and the entire intelligence-industrial complex defeated by tweedy academics with social sciences degrees? Sure thing.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    Odds are pretty much zero there. If you expect me to take my eyes off the terrorists (foreign and domestic), the Russians, North Koreans and so on, to entertain your fever dream of, I don't know, Barak Obama or whatever being a threat, you're gonna be disappointed. National security sir, is not a game.
    - mieses 2y ago
      if it's not a game then what is it?
      - bilbo0s 2y ago
        Look, I'm familiar with the historical debate about whether this is game theory or art. I come down on the art side. Game theory can deliver success in battle. In some cases, even war. But not in securing a nation. Which is a different matter entirely. Books through the centuries and millennia from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli framing it as an art have proven more enduring than those framing it as a game. There is a reason for that. You don't even have to be good at that art. But like any art you'd better at minimum have a discerning eye if you expect to have any chance of getting anything of importance that you may want. When you don't have a discerning eye, you start going after things that hold neither importance nor permanence. You expend all that well honed knowledge of game theory in the pursuit of foolish objectives.
rich_sasha 2y ago
I was always queasy about mega corps saying "look at us, we are so good, we have outreach/pronouns/ESG", for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on. I much preferred that companies comply with regulation, without necessarily doing extra, and instead for the regulation to reflect values that the society needs from them. Well, voila. The wind changed a month ago and this entire system of voluntary goodness seems gone with the wind. But then again, I suppose, we've also been shown that regulation can be changed on a whim, at least in the current climate. Perhaps my preferred way would work with less extreme illiberals, but not this.
darthrupert 2y ago
Despite this, and despite how USA is fumbbling right now internationally, Google is still on our side against actually harmful elementa of humanity. For example: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/russia-targeting-signal-messenger https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/rus...
- aaomidi 2y ago
  Counter point: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-ai-weapons-430f6f15aab420806163558732726ad9 https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-ai-weapons-43... Imagine the US military being ordered to, let’s say, kill some group X. Think Google is gonna deny them access to their tech?
  - darthrupert 2y ago
    When there's a global war brewing, we'll need future historians to tell us which side is being more correct today.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  I think it's a serious stretch to say Google is on "our side". They support some efforts that benefit us, and they also support some efforts that harm us.
erikig 2y ago
A single entity that has the world mapped down to the street, that knows your search history, that has a device in your pocket and that owns a number of robotics interests is not one to be trifled with.
jmyeet 2y ago
The fate of any sufficiently large American company is to become an instrument of American foriegn and domestic policy. More specifically, any big tech company at this point is a defense contractor, no different to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon or Northron Grumman. At one point the British Empire controlled a quarter of the globe. The source of Britain's power was that it was a drug dealer empire, first tobacco, later opium. American empire is arguably larger and more influential than the British Empire but instead of direct colonial control, the influence is economic through puppet regimes. The US is an arms dealer empire. WWI, WW2 and beyond greatly enriched the US. You want to see what an arms dealer empire does with AI? Look no further than Lavender [1]. You may think you're removed from this, probably being in the imperial core. Unfortunately, the imperial boomerang [2] should make you question that assumption. [1]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang

68 points by ta8645 2y ago

Previously: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42938125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42938125

busterarm 2y ago

[flagged]

wrs 2y ago
I’m trying to imagine how you would consider greater excellence in the field of pervasive surveillance of citizens as a measure of a “superior culture”.
almosthere 2y ago
[flagged]
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  Looks like the current administration is seeking to change that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/19/trump-pentagon-budget-cuts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/19/...
  - almosthere 2y ago
    This is just things that are DOGE related. The military does not need a fleet of cybertrucks, it needs GAS based vehicles. The same idiotic policies that Biden pushed in all other executive areas are in the military too. Trump will cut the budget related to fraud, waste and abuse in the military - and likely increase the budget for sane things.
    - trhway 2y ago
      >The military does not need a fleet of cybertrucks, it needs GAS based vehicles. I suggest you take a look at FLIR videos from Ukraine, including from targeting IR cameras of various anti-tank, etc. weapons.
    - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
      Did you expect the Trump administration to align itself with the USA’s historic geopolitical adversary, and distance itself from its formal allies? Do you believe alignment with russia is what the American electorate thought they were voting for?
dcreater 2y ago
What an intensely adolescent take. Even with nuclear weapons, we were able to get to disarmament treaties and start undoing the damage of the arms race. This time one would hope we don't make the same mistakes again and flirt with disaster. Alas it seems history is poised to repeat itself
- busterarm 2y ago
  Are you daft? We had a major power on the UN Security Council threaten to use nuclear weapons in their currently ongoing war as little as three months ago. Full disarmament is a myth. Some warheads are going to be maintained going into forever. That's how you deter the other guy from developing and using the same. Literally wrote my undergrad thesis on why complete nuclear disarmament is impossible 20+ years ago. Countries only wage wars that they think they can win. And every technology is a potential weapons technology.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
What are the limits of this argument? Let's say, entirely hypothetically, that our adversaries have found that weapons testing on prisoners helps them iterate better. Must we copy it? Repeat for every new level of depravity you can think of. Put another way, how is this not simply an argument that might makes right?
- busterarm 2y ago
  "Being on the right side of history" is a really shit prize if its cost is "you're dead".
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    No one knows the future, so you're actually arguing the possible downside of losing justifies any actions to mitigate it, regardless of cost.

almosthere 2y ago

Naive people think that people are fundamentally good. We need military, weapons and surveillance to keep people safe. Typically the naive people are just sheltered and/or young.

benatkin 2y ago
That reminds me of this quote, modified: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough robots stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” It’s got a bit different of a vibe from “Don’t be evil.”
kelvinjps10 2y ago
No, it's typically old people that are pro military
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Just where do all those young soldiers, sailors and pilots come from I wonder?
  - pwdisswordfishz 2y ago
    Poverty.
- ghusto 2y ago
  You're saying the same thing?
JKCalhoun 2y ago
People are fundamentally good. It's just a few assholes that keep us from having nice things.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  If only we got rid of <group>, we'd have a utopia because they wouldn't be around to ruin it. We could do this by putting them on the B ark.

jurenbert 2y ago

"It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?" Norm MacDonald

mieses 2y ago
[flagged]
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Anyone that thinks that combination of credentials is the kryptonite that our nation's security is vulnerable to should spend some time examining their media intake. Local, State, and Federal law enforcement and the entire intelligence-industrial complex defeated by tweedy academics with social sciences degrees? Sure thing.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Odds are pretty much zero there. If you expect me to take my eyes off the terrorists (foreign and domestic), the Russians, North Koreans and so on, to entertain your fever dream of, I don't know, Barak Obama or whatever being a threat, you're gonna be disappointed. National security sir, is not a game.
  - mieses 2y ago
    if it's not a game then what is it?
    - bilbo0s 2y ago
      Look, I'm familiar with the historical debate about whether this is game theory or art. I come down on the art side. Game theory can deliver success in battle. In some cases, even war. But not in securing a nation. Which is a different matter entirely. Books through the centuries and millennia from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli framing it as an art have proven more enduring than those framing it as a game. There is a reason for that. You don't even have to be good at that art. But like any art you'd better at minimum have a discerning eye if you expect to have any chance of getting anything of importance that you may want. When you don't have a discerning eye, you start going after things that hold neither importance nor permanence. You expend all that well honed knowledge of game theory in the pursuit of foolish objectives.

rich_sasha 2y ago

I was always queasy about mega corps saying "look at us, we are so good, we have outreach/pronouns/ESG", for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on. I much preferred that companies comply with regulation, without necessarily doing extra, and instead for the regulation to reflect values that the society needs from them. Well, voila. The wind changed a month ago and this entire system of voluntary goodness seems gone with the wind. But then again, I suppose, we've also been shown that regulation can be changed on a whim, at least in the current climate. Perhaps my preferred way would work with less extreme illiberals, but not this.

darthrupert 2y ago

Despite this, and despite how USA is fumbbling right now internationally, Google is still on our side against actually harmful elementa of humanity. For example: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/russia-targeting-signal-messenger https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/rus...

aaomidi 2y ago
Counter point: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-ai-weapons-430f6f15aab420806163558732726ad9 https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-ai-weapons-43... Imagine the US military being ordered to, let’s say, kill some group X. Think Google is gonna deny them access to their tech?
- darthrupert 2y ago
  When there's a global war brewing, we'll need future historians to tell us which side is being more correct today.
JohnFen 2y ago
I think it's a serious stretch to say Google is on "our side". They support some efforts that benefit us, and they also support some efforts that harm us.

erikig 2y ago

A single entity that has the world mapped down to the street, that knows your search history, that has a device in your pocket and that owns a number of robotics interests is not one to be trifled with.

jmyeet 2y ago

The fate of any sufficiently large American company is to become an instrument of American foriegn and domestic policy. More specifically, any big tech company at this point is a defense contractor, no different to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon or Northron Grumman. At one point the British Empire controlled a quarter of the globe. The source of Britain's power was that it was a drug dealer empire, first tobacco, later opium. American empire is arguably larger and more influential than the British Empire but instead of direct colonial control, the influence is economic through puppet regimes. The US is an arms dealer empire. WWI, WW2 and beyond greatly enriched the US. You want to see what an arms dealer empire does with AI? Look no further than Lavender [1]. You may think you're removed from this, probably being in the imperial core. Unfortunately, the imperial boomerang [2] should make you question that assumption. [1]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang