4 ms·

Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI mod

Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?

belzebub 6mo ago
There's big air quotes energy in their statement
tdb7893 6mo ago
Especially concerning with the how creative the executive branch can be when it comes to what laws mean. With little oversight, it seems guaranteed that it will be used for unlawful activities (despite whatever tortured argument some lawyer will have put into a memo somewhere).
- xp84 6mo ago
  Yeah, they’re really bad! Seems like it might be time to try convincing people to vote for someone else! Democrats haven’t tried that play since 2012, preferring the “scorn and insult anyone outside your base” strategy that’s worked so well since.
f33d5173 6mo ago
Lawful is presumably defined in the usual, common sense, ie we can do whatever the f we want until a court physically forces us not to.
- dmd 6mo ago
  And since the court has no way to physically force anything - that's the executive branch's function, (it's right there in the name) - lawful has no meaning whatsoever if it's the executive branch that wants to break the law.
  - muvlon 6mo ago
    And the Pentagon has historically gotten away with damn near everything even in the judicial branch by appealing to national security.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
shevy-java 6mo ago
It kind of reminds me of a mix of Skynet in Terminator and Minority Report. But nowhere near as interesting. More annoying than anything else. I am kind of mad at James Cameron here. Skynet was evil but interesting. Reallife controlled by Google is evil but not interesting - it is flat out annoying.
ApolloFortyNine 6mo ago
This has to be one of the strangest "debates" in history. Congress and the courts obviously. If you think there's a hole in the law tell your congressman, don't, for some reason, try and put Google or any Ai company above the government.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  > Congress and the courts obviously. The first is fully neutered. The second is far too slow. "Nothing unlawful" needing to be in the contract is inherently concerning, as it's typically the default, assumed state of such a thing.
  - deepsun 6mo ago
    "follow the law" in contracts IMO is there to be able to claim a "breach of contract" by one party.
- calgoo 6mo ago
  Please! That ship sailed a long time ago. Sure tell your congressman, who is most likely bribed (lobbying is bribing, lets use the real words) by the same companies to accept the deal. The courts can try, but who is going to enforce it when the people above says that its fine.
CobrastanJorji 6mo ago
That's presumably the trick, and it's not a subtle one; it's why the article puts it on quotes in the headline. Google gets to claim that it stood up for principles because it boldly insisted that the government obey the law, and the government will claim that whatever it decides to do is lawful. It's the same as what OpenAI did except not handled buffoonishly.
ethagnawl 6mo ago
The classified aspect is probably the most concerning. How can I write my representative (and expect a form letter response six weeks later) if I don't know what I'm objecting to or even if I should be objecting?
- cooper_ganglia 6mo ago
  Why would you write a letter if you don't know what you're objecting to or even if you should be objecting?
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    Can't I object to not knowing?
    - cooper_ganglia 6mo ago
      No, that's what classified means.
      - ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Surely I can complain about overclassification of things that should not be classified?
        xp84 6mo ago
        Absolutely. We will file your complaint in the appropriate location. The location is classified. Ok all jokes aside, if you suspect that there’s wrongdoing in the classified sphere, and it really matters to you, well, you should get involved in politics. We don’t just let everyone everywhere know everything, because we think it would be risky if Putin or the Chinese Communist Party also knew all those things. So we limit it to people who have taken oaths and are accountable and need to know (the military), the civilians who need to know (security clearance holders), and those who hold a high office with the public’s trust (high-ranking politicians). You can be a Senator. You just need a lot of people to trust you enough to vote for you. Or, and this is a bit easier, support politicians you do trust to vet classified things to be elected to high office, and ask them to look into it and give you their word that things are being done properly.
impulser_ 6mo ago
No it doesn't at all. Private corporations shouldn't be telling the government what it can and can't do. That's the job of the people. You want private corporation overriding your vote?
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  > Private corporations shouldn't be telling the government what it can and can't do. So Google can't tell the government it needs a warrant to perform a search? Google can't sue over something the government did? It's Google's product they want to buy.
  - serial_dev 6mo ago
    Just follow the orders, man!
    - red-iron-pine 6mo ago
      don't worry about the people getting sent to camps. it's lawful so it's okay. now follow orders.
  - impulser_ 6mo ago
    I'm talking about lawful, like it written in the terms.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      But Google isn't, apparently, permitted to object "that's not lawful". And again, it's Google's product. Why can't they set conditions? If I pay Google to host my email, I'm still subject to their policies.
- xp84 6mo ago
  Agree. It seems on the surface convenient right now when people think the company (or rank and file employees?) are on their political “team” but they’d get less comfortable when oil companies or other “bad” companies dictate terms to the government. “We’ll provide fuel for the military if and only if you overturn the leader of $COUNTRY” (Yes, I recognize that past military entanglements do read as favors for Big Oil, but that’s more because lobbyists directly purchased the corrupt and useless Congress)
cooper_ganglia 6mo ago
Google should never be determining what is lawful or not.
kingleopold 6mo ago
"who watches watchmen" question as old as time itself
jonathanstrange 6mo ago
One thing is sure, they don't have international law in mind...
dismalaf 6mo ago
By definition "the law" is the set of laws that the government passes. So it's a roundabout way of saying the government can pretty much do what they want. Also, this is probably the only acceptable arrangement when it comes to industry-government contracts. The government will always have more information than civilians.

Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?

belzebub 6mo ago

There's big air quotes energy in their statement

tdb7893 6mo ago

Especially concerning with the how creative the executive branch can be when it comes to what laws mean. With little oversight, it seems guaranteed that it will be used for unlawful activities (despite whatever tortured argument some lawyer will have put into a memo somewhere).

xp84 6mo ago
Yeah, they’re really bad! Seems like it might be time to try convincing people to vote for someone else! Democrats haven’t tried that play since 2012, preferring the “scorn and insult anyone outside your base” strategy that’s worked so well since.

f33d5173 6mo ago

Lawful is presumably defined in the usual, common sense, ie we can do whatever the f we want until a court physically forces us not to.

dmd 6mo ago
And since the court has no way to physically force anything - that's the executive branch's function, (it's right there in the name) - lawful has no meaning whatsoever if it's the executive branch that wants to break the law.
- muvlon 6mo ago
  And the Pentagon has historically gotten away with damn near everything even in the judicial branch by appealing to national security.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

shevy-java 6mo ago

It kind of reminds me of a mix of Skynet in Terminator and Minority Report. But nowhere near as interesting. More annoying than anything else. I am kind of mad at James Cameron here. Skynet was evil but interesting. Reallife controlled by Google is evil but not interesting - it is flat out annoying.

ApolloFortyNine 6mo ago

This has to be one of the strangest "debates" in history. Congress and the courts obviously. If you think there's a hole in the law tell your congressman, don't, for some reason, try and put Google or any Ai company above the government.

ceejayoz 6mo ago
> Congress and the courts obviously. The first is fully neutered. The second is far too slow. "Nothing unlawful" needing to be in the contract is inherently concerning, as it's typically the default, assumed state of such a thing.
- deepsun 6mo ago
  "follow the law" in contracts IMO is there to be able to claim a "breach of contract" by one party.
calgoo 6mo ago
Please! That ship sailed a long time ago. Sure tell your congressman, who is most likely bribed (lobbying is bribing, lets use the real words) by the same companies to accept the deal. The courts can try, but who is going to enforce it when the people above says that its fine.

CobrastanJorji 6mo ago

That's presumably the trick, and it's not a subtle one; it's why the article puts it on quotes in the headline. Google gets to claim that it stood up for principles because it boldly insisted that the government obey the law, and the government will claim that whatever it decides to do is lawful. It's the same as what OpenAI did except not handled buffoonishly.

ethagnawl 6mo ago

The classified aspect is probably the most concerning. How can I write my representative (and expect a form letter response six weeks later) if I don't know what I'm objecting to or even if I should be objecting?

cooper_ganglia 6mo ago
Why would you write a letter if you don't know what you're objecting to or even if you should be objecting?
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  Can't I object to not knowing?
  - cooper_ganglia 6mo ago
    No, that's what classified means.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      Surely I can complain about overclassification of things that should not be classified?
      - xp84 6mo ago
        Absolutely. We will file your complaint in the appropriate location. The location is classified. Ok all jokes aside, if you suspect that there’s wrongdoing in the classified sphere, and it really matters to you, well, you should get involved in politics. We don’t just let everyone everywhere know everything, because we think it would be risky if Putin or the Chinese Communist Party also knew all those things. So we limit it to people who have taken oaths and are accountable and need to know (the military), the civilians who need to know (security clearance holders), and those who hold a high office with the public’s trust (high-ranking politicians). You can be a Senator. You just need a lot of people to trust you enough to vote for you. Or, and this is a bit easier, support politicians you do trust to vet classified things to be elected to high office, and ask them to look into it and give you their word that things are being done properly.

impulser_ 6mo ago

No it doesn't at all. Private corporations shouldn't be telling the government what it can and can't do. That's the job of the people. You want private corporation overriding your vote?

ceejayoz 6mo ago
> Private corporations shouldn't be telling the government what it can and can't do. So Google can't tell the government it needs a warrant to perform a search? Google can't sue over something the government did? It's Google's product they want to buy.
- serial_dev 6mo ago
  Just follow the orders, man!
  - red-iron-pine 6mo ago
    don't worry about the people getting sent to camps. it's lawful so it's okay. now follow orders.
- impulser_ 6mo ago
  I'm talking about lawful, like it written in the terms.
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    But Google isn't, apparently, permitted to object "that's not lawful". And again, it's Google's product. Why can't they set conditions? If I pay Google to host my email, I'm still subject to their policies.
xp84 6mo ago
Agree. It seems on the surface convenient right now when people think the company (or rank and file employees?) are on their political “team” but they’d get less comfortable when oil companies or other “bad” companies dictate terms to the government. “We’ll provide fuel for the military if and only if you overturn the leader of $COUNTRY” (Yes, I recognize that past military entanglements do read as favors for Big Oil, but that’s more because lobbyists directly purchased the corrupt and useless Congress)

cooper_ganglia 6mo ago

Google should never be determining what is lawful or not.

kingleopold 6mo ago

"who watches watchmen" question as old as time itself

jonathanstrange 6mo ago

One thing is sure, they don't have international law in mind...

dismalaf 6mo ago

By definition "the law" is the set of laws that the government passes. So it's a roundabout way of saying the government can pretty much do what they want. Also, this is probably the only acceptable arrangement when it comes to industry-government contracts. The government will always have more information than civilians.