8 ms·
Who could have seen this one coming. From yesterday: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-ai-pentagon-classified-use-employee-letter/ https://www.cbsnews.com/new
by anematode 5mo ago
Who could have seen this one coming. From yesterday: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-ai-pentagon-classified-use-employee-letter/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-ai-pentagon-classified-u... ("Hundreds of Google workers urge CEO to refuse classified AI work with Pentagon").
Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.
- devin 5mo agoThat's what the 7 figure salaries are for.
- testfrequency 5mo agoIt’s funny to me how many progressive people I know and am friends with who work at these AI companies which are marginalized demographics (Trans, Gay, Latino, Black). Still have faded Bernie stickers on their cars, No Kings organizers, “fuck SF I’m in the east bay for life fuck tech” - and you all make 7 figures Monday - Friday by supporting the death of society and democracy. I don’t dare say anything though because “money is money”, the bay is expensive..but I do sure as shit judge every single person I know who joined OAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta.
- site-packages1 5mo agoI would suggest looking inwards if this is how you really feel.
- gambiting 5mo agoI'm curious what is that you're suggesting, exactly.
- site-packages1 5mo agoI made another comment above. People contain multitudes. Different contexts, different choices, not everyone is in a box defined by the viewer's world view. You can't really know what's going on with someone else, in their heads, in their context, so give them some grace. Instead, this person's "friends" are "hypocrites" who were "lured" into their choices. It's very condescending. I am suggesting the poster re-examine their own views on other people in light of this.
- foltik 5mo agoYou're missing the point. They're just lamenting the contrast between what their friends say (fuck tech, no kings) and what they spend their workweek in service of. It's not complicated: if these friends would take a non-society-destroying job at equal pay (who wouldn't?) then their values aren't driving the decision, money is. Fine, that's a choice adults get to make. But then own it and actually justify it on its merits, don't just retreat to "who are you to judge."
- senordevnyc 5mo agoNot everyone sees AI as "society-destroying".
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- foltik 5mo agoDidn’t say that. The friends in question clearly think it is. My point more generally was about people who publicly talk about $X being society-destroying while materially enabling $X for a paycheck.
- senordevnyc 5mo agoIt’s really not clear to me that they think that. OP was clearly saying that if you’re progressive, the intellectually honest position is to be anti-AI. I don’t think that necessarily follows.
- testfrequency 5mo agoI mean no harm in saying what I said, I love my friends. I just can’t stomach the hypocrisy, it’s what the companies are preying and feeding off of. My friends are incredibly bright and good at what they do, it’s why they all have the roles they have. It makes me sad (and frustrated) knowing they are lured in by enough money dangling in front of them that makes them swallow their souls and identity, while fuelling the fire in the same breath. I have a deep amount of respect and gratitude for my friends (and anyone else) who chooses to work at non-profits, and more ethical - mission based companies for less. I hate how much these AI companies and roles are offering people, it’s completely forced lots of gifted people into a war machine.
- site-packages1 5mo agoDo you suspect there is any chance they are fully independent adult human beings with full agency, who have looked at the pros and cons, and chosen to make the choices they did with clear eyes? Do you think there's any context that might square their choices with their own internal principles that don't make them hypocrites? I mean these as real questions. For "friends you love" you really seem to take a dim view of their intelligence.
- testfrequency 5mo agoI’ll be honest and say it’s made me question and reposition some of my friendships with a number of these friends. Some joined well before we knew the fallout of how AI has affected and impacted society negatively, some have joined in recent years because they were offered 2x their currently already high comp package, and others will take any job they can get (who, admittedly, I judge far less as I know they are just needing to survive in a HCOL city). My dim view is more on the AI companies being absurdly overvalued, with too much money to know what to do, which feeds downwards into compensation packages, which lure in “innocent” individuals who can’t say no. It’s not been a healthy market to be vulnerable in, most companies outside AI are just not getting the same funding or can compete at all - and it’s a shit storm.
- somenameforme 5mo agoOne of humanity's greatest weaknesses is cognitive dissonance. People can convince themselves of just about anything. And in some ways intelligence is a burden here. A fool will just do something with a reason of 'f you, that's why.' It's only the clever man that will even bother rationalizing the villain into the hero, and we're great at it. An interesting thought experiment is to ask people if they'd be willing to push a button that would randomly kill a person somewhere in the world for a million dollars. They'd have no direct accountability themselves and their action would be unknown to anybody else. People will rationalize themselves into declaring this moral even though it is obviously one of the most overtly amoral actions possible. One friend I have, a rather intelligent guy otherwise, was even trying to create a utilitarian argument that he'd donate some percent of his 'earnings' to life saving charities meaning he'd be saving more life on the net. The fact that if everybody thought and behaved the same way, the entirety of humanity would cease to exist, was a consideration he didn't have a response for. Let alone the fact that he just rationalized his way into justifying near to any deed imaginable, so long as you got paid enough for it.
- beernet 5mo agoAgreed. Just shows that big money doesn't dilude small character.
- foobar_______ 5mo agoPreach. The hypocrisy is startling. I think people started at these companies maybe years ago with "good intentions" and are willing to turn a blind eye. But now, given just how glaring clear it is, I don't think it is really excusable anymore. To be clear, people can work wherever they want including these companies but what kills me is the hypocrisy. They are pathological liars to themselves if they somehow think they aren't complicit.
- tjwebbnorfolk 5mo agoWhy is it morally compromising to work with the military of the country you live in?
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- plaidthunder 5mo agoI'm not anti-military as a rule but... c'mon. Opinions on the US military vary. In extremis, were the people working for Pol Pot just good patriots with no moral culpability? We could surely at least agree that there are cases where working for the military of your home country doesn't fully excuse you from your actions. In fact, I think international tribunals have existed which operated on just those principles.
- mrexcess 5mo agoWe can all agree that working for the Nazi government’s military would be morally compromising, right? You propose that other governments militaries would not be so compromising. Seems reasonable. But the question then becomes, what is the operative distinction between the two?
- cooper_ganglia 5mo ago[flagged]
- CamperBob2 5mo agoThis government doesn't GAF what is "lawful" and what isn't. Was what happened to Pretti and Good in Minneapolis lawful? Would you work for ICE/CBP with no qualms at all? See also the new national sport of hunting for fishing boats off the South American coast. Is that "lawful?" And yes, since you went there: everything the Nazis did was "lawful." To the extent it wasn't "lawful," they made it "lawful."
- 5mo ago
- orochimaaru 5mo agoWhy is it morally wrong for a US citizen to work with their government?
- _vertigo 5mo agoIt’s not morally wrong per-se but just because you are working with your government does not mean what you’re doing is necessarily moral
- cooper_ganglia 5mo agoJust because you are working with your government does not mean what you’re doing is necessarily immoral, either.
- _alternator_ 5mo agoCorrect. It depends. For example, it might depend on what the collaboration is likely to result in. Perhaps it would be more likely to be moral there were some boundaries in place, like "no mass domestic surveillance" or "no fully autonomous weapons". Because the US government currently believes it is legal to blow up civilian drug traffickers and wage war without congressional approval. So at some point, yes, collaboration is immoral.
- nradov 5mo agoThe US military has deployed fully autonomous weapons since at least 1979, and potential adversaries are now doing the same. For better or worse that ship has sailed.
- Forgeties79 5mo agoSo we are wrong to express any opposition or desire to maybe raise the bar here? Aren’t we supposed to be “the good guys”? Or should we just accept a role as the menace of the world, wildly throwing its weight around whenever we have an unscrupulous president?
- declan_roberts 5mo agoThankfully Russia, China, etc have the same qualms as we do in the United States and will refused to send their brightest engineers to work on weapons so they don't become "morally compromised"!!!
- gambiting 5mo agoI don't know if you're being sarcastic(sounds like you are!) but indeed a lot of engineers left Russia after the war in Ukraine started as they didn't want to be drafted and didn't want to contribute to the war effort in some way, even if indirectly. Of course, many stayed or even willingly help. See how many engineers from Iran work abroad too, for moral and other reasons. The point is - this happens everywhere, it's not just some weird western thing.
- cooper_ganglia 5mo ago[flagged]
- wood_spirit 5mo agoJust curious, did the move on Greenland and Iran have national security interest? And is it economical or life threatening?
- cooper_ganglia 5mo ago[flagged]
- griffzhowl 5mo agoNational security can mean protecting a society founded on the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It can also mean facilitating a militaristic surveillance state. Not necessarily the same things, and at some point we might have to choose who's side we're on
- d5lt5 5mo ago
- site-packages1 5mo ago> Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised. Arguably it's exactly the opposite. In the same way we ask billionaires to pay their taxes because the regulatory regime is what allowed them the structure to make their billions in the first place, the national security of the country the AI researchers are in is what allows them to make a vast salary to work on interesting, leading edge capabilities like AI. They should feel obligated to help the military.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5mo agoIs it any less moral than surveilling your neighbors and/or turning your neighbors against each other with social media?
- thisisauserid 5mo agoI agree that it is immoral to obey some laws. Which ones are you saying are immoral here?
- ddtaylor 5mo agoAn AI researcher can work anywhere they want, can't they? At the minimum they could work in a different field entirely. It seems like a false dichotomy to frame the question around laws.
- thisisauserid 5mo agoGot it. It's immoral because you said so.
- ddtaylor 5mo agoWhat did I say was immoral?
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- ReptileMan 5mo agoMorality is relative and malleable. And usually people are quite good at claiming that whatever suits my agenda is moral.
- boringg 5mo agoWhy is it that this line items comes up EVERY TIME an article comes out in a knee jerk reaction - its so incredibly absolute: "Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised." It feels like a constant campaign and the posters seem so incredibly self righteous and unthoughtful.
- crumpled 5mo agoProbably because the articles are talking about how the AI will be used in immoral ways, and that the people who know that and continue doing the work must be morally compromised. I know that there might be $several ways those highly-paid engineers might still rationalize their work. Some of them might have ideological reasons to treat entire classes of people as unworthy of life. Within the model of their ideologies, the most evil things might be perfectly moral. I wonder what reasons you have to disagree with people's moral stance against using AI as a weapon.
- boringg 5mo agoIn absoluteness you lose your credibility except when rallying people to arms.
- anematode 5mo agoI stand by it. I'm not including all Google employees, ofc – there are some fantastic projects coming out of there – just the people working on their AI systems which will be accessible to the government with (effectively) no oversight. I actually don't think it's so nuanced. We know (from its spat with Anthropic) that the government wants the ability to use AI to implement mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous killings. We also have ample data that this administration takes the law as a mere suggestion. It's imperative not to make their abuses easier. Google's researchers aren't stuck there; their skills are in extraordinary demand and I'm sure Anthropic, for example, would hire them in an instant.
- robrenaud 5mo agoIs every American tax payer morally compromised?
- eks391 5mo agoYes ;) I agree with the intent of your rhetorical question, so I'm jesting with you. I'm justifying my "yes" with the hopefully humorous distraction that every person, including American taxpayers, has at some point made a nonsustainable/selfish (my definition of immoral) decision.
- mvelbaum 5mo agoAny AI researcher who refuses to support his own country in a technological arms race is morally bankrupt, foolishly naive and does not deserve to enjoy the the way of life created for him by those who sacrificed their lives.
- JeremyNT 5mo agoAlso yesterday, on Brin getting cozy with this administration: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/27/us/politics/sergey-brin-gg-soto-trump-california-billionaire-tax.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eFA.y4nk.EUPLrY151CDn&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/27/us/politics/sergey-brin-g...
- pixel_popping 5mo agoWhy would they be morally compromised? So the ones building open-source models should be as well because some terrorist will use the model to do nefarious stuff?
- RobRivera 5mo agoThat's not a productive stance to take, if you're trying to be good faith and an agent of progress, even assuming morality isn't realitive, and the context nuanced.