The HN policy seems to be that later posts on the same topic (even if they're different urls) will be considered duplicates, unless an article adds significant new information [1]. Otherwise you get discussion about the same topic split over multiple threads, leading to both repetition and incompleteness on each thread.
If you think this article contains significant new information, or that it is a better source than the earlier post and should be the one linked from that thread, you should email the mods – hn@ycombinator.com.
The problem with this thinking is that Google is not in the "business of war" but in the business of artificial intelligence. They have written an AI engine and a customer, the defense industry, wants to use it.
This is almost like people in the steel industry wanting to get out of this business of war by not selling or working on steel.
Another thing to note is, do these Googlers honestly think Russia and China and others aren't working on the same thing to be used by their military? Are these Googlers actively trying to persuade those countries not to work on this business of war at the same time?
I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. If steel is the commodity in this example, then general AI techniques would be the analog for Google. Here, employees are complaining about a specific project working with the DoD, not generally working on AI:
"Google is implementing Project Maven, a customized AI surveillance engine that uses “wide area motion imagery” data captured by US government drones to detect vehicles and other objects, track their motions and provide results to the Department of Defense."
While that’s true an individual company might still elect not to do so.
However I think that the biggest difference is that Google employees have the luxury of saying that because from both a corporate and personal prespective they take zero risk.
Worst case Google let’s them go with a nice severance to avoid lawsuits and they’ll find another job by the end of the week.
Workers in a steel mill that might be lucky to even have a job don’t.
The problem with this thinking is that Google is not in the "business of war" but in the business of artificial intelligence.
Sorry, but this just spin. If you create product X specifically designed for and marketed to vertical market Y... then you're in the business of Y, period.
Not even Google's own product people would pretend to believe otherwise.
>Another thing to note is, do these Googlers honestly think Russia and China and others aren't working on the same thing to be used by their military? Are these Googlers actively trying to persuade those countries not to work on this business of war at the same time?
Some people don't want to take part in automated killing. It is not their duty to stop others.
Mine as well. More generally, I've often observed that when the status quo is imperfect, many people are willing to opt for a worse system so long as the imperfections are different (e.g., capitalism vs socialism).
>The problem with this thinking is that Google is not in the "business of war" but in the business of artificial intelligence. They have written an AI engine and a customer, the defense industry, wants to use it.
Would you be okay if your AI works as American ends up in the hands of the Russian military?
Why should a German, or French, or Russian Google employee then accept that their work ends up in the hands of the US military?
EDIT: Yes, they won’t directly work on the drone program – but the drone program will more likely than not be reusing ML technology built all across Google, and everyone that worked on that now knows they are personally helping the US military-industrial complex.
You must not know how these things work. If they are working with the DOD they are probably American citizens on American soil. Especially if anything is classified, I’d put money AI is.
There was a video of Elon Musk talking about how they can only hire Citizens at SpaceX due to government restrictions. Same concept would apply to Google and DOD Work.
> You must not know how these things work. If they are working with the DOD they are probably American citizens on American soil. Especially if anything is classified, I’d put money AI is.
Directly? No. But the Google employees working on ReCaptcha know their work on training object recognition models will help the US military, and the ReCaptcha people aren’t only US citizen.
I’m a web dev and looked at federal jobs that required a citizenship at minimum and at max a clearance with polygraphs.
Nothing in my line of work comes close to ITAR, just business process automation. I’ll put money anything with AI and DOD in the job description will require polygraphs, background interviews, citizenship etc.
Indeed it does. Google tried to flirt with the regime back a decade ago and be say at minimum "too conciliatory" with them. Now what came out of that?
After they did few token delisting of opposition websites, Russian three letter service felt they finally snapped, and that they can have their own way with them.
They had to evacuate their most valuable cadres out of there to Switzerland, by giving Swiss canton an eye watering sum for a carte-blanche from their immigration office to resettle former Russian office staff there.
Armed men in black now frequent their office on Balchug. Now, with suitcases stuffed with god knows what on them.
You know, MDA had non-citizens working on American spy sats for quite some time... Just look at their linkedins. I don't think a man who graduated Peking university on a full time program, can become a Canadian/US citizen the next year, when he joined MDA.
Quite a lot of those guys are on work permits in Canada.
Missing from this letter is any indication of action if Google does not agree to the demands. Are these 3000 people going to quit? Somehow I feel it is unlikely.
not sure why you're getting downvoted for this. Those working for Google (or any large Silicon Valley firm) are usually among the top in their league and should be able to decide where they want to go based on their ideals/values, not because they have no other choice. Compared to the gazillions of engineers out there who are part of a 2nd or even 3rd party outsourcing chain (on crap salary and without rights in the company), Google employees are there because they want to. If the general opinion (in light of what we learned) now shifts towards a believe these companies are evil (which IMO they are) then I hardly feel sorry for the individual engineers. Googlers, Facebookers, Palantir guys should adapt and adjust or read "Who moved my cheese". Time for making these changes are now IMHO.
They are also smart enough to know that their opinions matter within the company, and they can affect positive change. This open letter is one mechanism for doing that.
In case I was misunderstood, my comment above is in favor of them voicing their concern.
The parent said something to the effect "if they don't like it, they are free to go find a job elsewhere", and to that my reply is in the sense, "well, they are also free to voice their concerns".
Advice to Googlers: stop working there. You are the smartest dumb people I know. Much like Oppenheimer you are running around, thinking you are doing something good. Wtf?
AI, robotics and cloning are going to create a very, very bad world where people mean nothing. Google wants to run that world.
This is a tough one, Google is walking into a semantic quagmire - how do you differentiate "business of war" from "protecting our troops/homeland". You are going to piss of one half of the country at least by even engaging in this debate.
The only Silicon Valley figure that would have veered out of this almost unscathed would have been Steve Jobs.
That's because Jobs built computers, not computers for the military, just computers. If they did wind up being used by the military, it was incidental, not because they were purpose-built for that.
Like Tim Cook, he wouldn't have let himself be in that position.
That's just how it is today, not some natural law. Companies can and have been democratic (e.g. coops and other such forms), and companies can be more democratic going forward if people want it so.
>2.Being good at war is a good thing.
Not for the casualties -- and often not for the general population either. Would a better at war Nazi Germany be "a good thing"? Would a better at Vietnam US be?
> That's just how it is today, not some natural law. Companies can and have been democratic (e.g. coops and other such forms), and companies can be more democratic going forward if people want it so.
Wouldn't survivorship bias dictate that the most successful companies are the ones that are left over, i.e. not democratic > democratic in the business of surviving. Regardless of your ideals.
> Wouldn't survivorship bias dictate that the most successful companies are the ones that are left over
It might indicate that the current environment in the US, including the legal/regulatory environment and the social environment, is structured (in some cases deliberately) to favor anti-democratic corporations, yes. (Note that at least some sources I've seen indicate that European worker coops have higher survival rates than conventional firms in the same market.)
Or it just might indicate that the democratic governance of firms in the US market is a less frequenrly tried thing, which has had less experience from which to optimize.
"Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can."
But what if your users belong to an organization known for doing bad?
"But [Don't Be Evil] is also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably"
But what if the law itself is evil? And what if you are acting honorably to further something evil?
If Neville Chamberlain and his cronies had strangled the infant Nazi regime at its birth, rather than appeasing Hitler, many of those people would have lived.
Instead, the appeasement just meant that the war, when it inevitably came, was vastly more horrible and cost vastly more lives than it otherwise would have.
And let's not forget people like William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, and General Electric.
All of those are not examples of "pacifism". All those are just people who were in favor of the Nazi Germany as a model of governance and/or profiteering from it.
>If Neville Chamberlain and his cronies had strangled the infant Nazi regime at its birth, rather than appeasing Hitler, many of those people would have lived.
That wasn't pacifism. That was a mix of avoiding the cost, a miscalculated idea about the long-term plans of Germany, and being OK with having Germany thwart the reds.
Not to mention that it could have been even worse for the victims if they had gone to war immediately, as they were unprepared ("Some recent historians have taken a more favourable perspective of Chamberlain and his policies, citing government papers released under the Thirty Year Rule and arguing that going to war with Germany in 1938 would have been disastrous as the UK was not ready.").
And why would your leadership care what you say? I know how little the leadership in my company (almost as big) cares about causes when there is money to be made. CEOs are paid to make profits not care about doing good. They do good when they are retired and can spend all the money they made making money and not caring so much about good. Why do so many companies do business in China despite all the censorship and other pain they have to support? Money.
