
Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially - raleighm
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/31/google-leaked-emails-drone-ai-pentagon-lucrative/
======
strooper
I don't see anything wrong for a company of a particular country helping their
military. GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi and all tech giants of that era did that
with pride during WWII. Then why can't Google, Facebook for USA?

Perhaps the illusion of globalization is making us perceive Google, Facebook
and other international giants as global companies. Although, geniuses from
around the world have significant contributions in the success of these
technology companies, after all, they are loyal only to profit and the USA.
When a war breaks loose, these data monsters are one of the best weapons
against the opponents.

~~~
blackrock
Because it is a conflict of interest.

The public has put their trust into Google for 20 years. We supported them. We
cheered them on. We have voluntarily given them all our personal data. Our
emails. Our instant messages. Our voices. All of it feeds into their massive
database for them to mine.

We put our faith into them, in the hopes that they would honor their creed,
that they would do no evil.

But gradually, that facade has faded away. Their accumulation of personal
data, beyond what is necessary for them to perform their work. And now this.
The utilization of their wealth and knowledge, to push forward the state-of-
the-art in the weaponization of Artificial Intelligence.

There is nothing that will stop this. The military will find a defense
contractor to do their bidding. But Google can voluntarily elect to remove
themselves from this sector. Let some other company do it. Let someone else
figure it out. The blood of dead innocent civilians will be on their hands.
You don't see Raytheon, Boeing, or Northrop crying about it.

By doing the military's bidding, then Google is now far scarier than Microsoft
ever was. For those who don't know, when they coined the phrase, Do no evil,
they meant it in relation to the Microsoft Borg of the 1980s and 90s.
Microsoft now seems like a sheep in comparison to Google.

I think it's time to disconnect Google from our lives. But, it's hopeless.
They are everywhere.

~~~
rifung
> There is nothing that will stop this. The military will find a defense
> contractor to do their bidding. But Google can voluntarily elect to remove
> themselves from this sector. Let some other company do it. Let someone else
> figure it out. The blood of dead innocent civilians will be on their hands.
> You don't see Raytheon, Boeing, or Northrop crying about it.

I work at Google but opinions are my own.

This is actually the thing I don't understand. Could you or someone please
kindly explain it to me?

What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons?

I've seen this whole "Google is betraying its 'do not evil' by working with
the military" as fact so many times but I've yet to get a better explanation
for why it's actually evil besides some variation of "the military is bad"

~~~
paganel
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons?

In case your question is serious: There are still some of us who believe in
peace as an end-goal for us humans, as a race. See Kant's "Perpetual Peace: A
Philosophical Sketch"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophical_Sketch))
for a more detailed view on the subject. "Working with the military or
developing weapons" are two activities that strongly work against achieving
that goal (even though there would be some who would say that in the short
term they do the opposite, i.e. that the military's purpose is to bring
peace).

~~~
cheschire
The military's purpose in modern times is not to bring peace, it is to
preserve peace. I find it an important distinction, as "bringing" peace sounds
like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as
unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. To
"preserve" peace implies, at least to me, that the military is focused on the
peace of the home population, and may take action elsewhere only in
preservation of that home population's peace.

Otherwise you have the crusades.

~~~
hapnin
The idea of the military preserving peace is like thinking a group of horny
boys will preserve virginity.

The US is the most aggressive military on Earth. There's no peace in its
presence.

~~~
dahdum
That's a hypothesis without much backing, history shows an interventionist
hyper power reduces conflict.

We've seen Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica, and now Pax Americana.

There could be shining utopia without military conflict in the future, but
personally I'd rather not take the risk during my lifetime. Many equally
matched opponents has historically resulted in brutal warfare.

~~~
Bartweiss
Leaving aside Pax Americana to look at more settled history: none of those
events were peaceful in global terms. There's a reason the general term is
_pax imeperia_.

The Pax Romana was 200 years of relative quiet after 700 years of effectively
constant war, and followed by another 200 years of war. The thing most
historians stress is just how far from peaceful it was. In practice, Roman-
held lands were at peace because all resisting inhabitants were already dead,
and peace on the border constituted a period of slowed conquest and
retrenchment. As soon as the political situation deteriorated, both domestic
fighting and foreign glory-seeking resumed.

The Pax Mongolica followed what was per capita the single bloodiest war of
conquest in human history, wiping out perhaps 10% of Earth's total population
and killing literally every person in several nations. The conquest stopped
basically thanks a succession crisis. In return? About 200 years of relative
peace and good administration, before the black plague fragmented the khanate.
(And if we want to get cynical? The improvements to trade and travel under
super- and hyper-powers are a key vector for pandemics. It's not sheer
coincidence that disease ended the khanate.)

The Pax Britannica... well, it was accomplished mostly with vicious oppression
and butchering local populations until resistance stopped. In return, we got
about a century of quiet empire, ending in a global war and yet another world-
shaking pandemic (this time, the Spanish Flu).

The history of imperial peaces is one of temporary quietude after an empire
has killed off the opposition and reached a pause in its wars of conquest.
Fighting remains on the edges, and the peace usually ends in yet another
bloodbath as suppressed violence is unleashed - and often as disease wipes out
large portions of the empire. It's peace by comparison, not absolute quality.

(The one thing to be said for the Pax Americana is that it's been
comparatively bloodless. Even across a double-dozen shadow wars and conquests,
the act of conquest was vastly gentler than its predecessors - but the history
of such things does not inspire hope.)

~~~
dahdum
Thank you for this response. I don't argue that the way to that peace hasn't
been historical bloody, but the pandemics can't be blamed on the empires.
Those were inevitable as population and trade grew, a byproduct of
urbanization.

~~~
Bartweiss
> _the pandemics can 't be blamed on the empires. Those were inevitable as
> population and trade grew, a byproduct of urbanization._

Fair point. I guess my thought was that empires increase the risk of
pandemics, since they tend to come alongside expanded travel and trade.
Periods of peaceful empire see population and trade increase faster than
technological growth would predict, and disease becomes a frequent limit on
their durations. But it's certainly not an intended consequence, and the risk
would be rising with urbanization and technological growth regardless.

It's something that worries me about global connectivity, and I think it's a
widely underestimated risk. But it's hardly a risk I could hold against Pax
Americana; in an era of consumer plane travel nothing short of utter
isolationism would constrain the risk. At least in a relatively peaceful world
we have proactive monitoring and countries that can work together on treatment
and vaccines.

------
aetherson
I think that the leaked emails show that one or two execs within Google
expressed the optimistic case for the eventual revenue leading from the
project. That's how projects happen in companies. Some employee gets excited
about the potential of the project and writes emails talking about all the
huge numbers that project will post.

Most of those emails are wrong.

Maven may be wrong at any price or size. But Google's characterization of it
as a minor project doesn't seem contradicted by these emails.

~~~
aunty_helen
If it was only meant to be a $9 millon project, why take the risk? Google
aren't that badly cash strapped.

~~~
bmelton
I don't know any of the details of Maven, but I've done a lot of federal work,
and there are a few very good reasons to do insignificant projects, mainly
based around past performance.

In order to do any work for the government, you have to show that you have
have done the work before to a satisfactory standard, and that you've done it
for a type of agency similar to the one requesting proposals for the work.

So, while a given project might be nearly worthless, you do it so that you can
say that you did it, so that you're eligible to do it again in the future. The
side, but still major benefit of this is that it excludes would-be competitors
from getting that qualification, adding barriers to them for getting similar
work like this in the future.

Smaller companies, even companies that do exactly, or even _only_ a given
thing, often find it hard to get work doing their chosen thing because they
don't have these past performances. To get their first qualified performance,
they typically have to partner up with a larger company that has
qualifications for work at the agency (think Boeing, Raytheon, General
Dynamics, etc.), and do small bits of work as a sub-contractor for them until
you have enough documented performance to do the work on your own.

Whether or not _these_ particular military contracts are worth much, it opens
the door for a larger variety of contracts, which can be worth tens of
billions per year.

~~~
citrablue
If the prior contract reputation is the primary concern, couldn't google get
good reviews from the feds on altruistic projects? The less important the
contract amount, the easier it should be to choose an altruistic project (they
tend to pay less).

~~~
adamsea
Not for military contracts.

~~~
citrablue
The US military spends a huge amount of money on "kind" projects -- e.g., not
bombs and planes. The USS Mercy[0] is a multi-generational series of ships
that go to help natural disaster victims, all over the world. The entire
military spends on vaccines, supplies, and all kinds of good things for many
people. Even organizing philanthropic events would be an example of this.

My larger point is that you wouldn't have to start working with them on drones
unless you wanted to get in good with their drone funding teams, who appear,
by and large, to be dedicated to killing people remotely. [my opinion there]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mercy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mercy)

------
josefresco
Dear young, super smart Googlers: If your knowledge of the Middle East and
terrorism goes back to ISIS/Al Qaeda - stop coding (or selling ads) and visit
your local library. The history section is chalk full of wonderfully
informative books that will inform your opinions.

You might find that Internet tropes about terrorism to be less than accurate.

For example, I just finished "Rise and Kill First" [1] a rather enlightening
book about Israel's use of targeted assassinations going back almost 100
years. When I started reading Israel wasn't in the news, but then the whole
Iran/US nuclear deal fiasco hit, and it made Netanyahu's actions all the more
clear. Note, I'm not saying _justified_ but rather that I now understand _why_
Israel thinks and acts the way it does, and how sometimes this clashes with
their normally close allies like the US.

1: [https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-
Assassinatio...](https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-
Assassinations/dp/1400069718)

Before that, I read "Ghost Wars" [2] another beast of a book that covers US
involvement in the Middle East going back to the late 1970's up to 9/11\.
Fascinating book about the struggle to dominate Afghanistan by regional and
world powers.

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-
Septe...](https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-
September/dp/0143034669)

Before that, it was "The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their
Secret World War" [3] about the history of the CIA and the US's foreign policy
in the last 100+ years.

[3] [https://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Allen-
Secret/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Allen-
Secret/dp/0805094970)

Key point - These books look past recent events to provide an mostly complete
understanding of these conflicts that you can't get with 20 minute Google
searches and Wikipedia snippets.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Well beyond that, Military and Global Geopolitical research is a massive
discipline that is studied most intensely by the Military itself.

Just like most disciplines, it's not possible to get even a basic
understanding of this issue with only a year or two of study.

------
sqdbps
The irony of this particular piece is that they are publishing emails
expressing concern about how the media might frame and distort such an item
and doing just that.

The email discussion is mainly about potential revenue if they were to win the
JEDI contract it's not about maven or 'expecting the drone ai work to grow'.

Also worth noting that Google isn't the only contractor for maven yet they are
made as such in most articles.

As for the issue at large: Microsoft and Amazon have recently surpassed Google
in market value and that is largely due to cloud, they also manage to not have
their employees leak internal material to the press and protest publicly, and
I think Google should look into achieving that.

~~~
repolfx
Google probably can't change that, at least not overnight.

The reason Google are experiencing leaks and taking flak for this is that it's
only Google that ever claimed to be a superior moral actor. Amazon and
Microsoft, for all their faults, never claimed to be much more than tech
companies that want to make money - the extent of Microsoft's moral ambition
was "computers are good, let's put a computer in every home", a goal which is
hard to argue with given the attendant positive consequences of computing for
society.

Google, on the other hand, has frequently made the following claims:

• It won't "be evil", whatever that means.

• It has an ethics board, for AI specifically.

• That it withdrew from the Chinese search market due to being unwilling to go
along anymore with the government's censorship.

• That it "believes in the empowering and democratizing effect of putting
information in the hands of everyone, everywhere"

• From its code of conduct, that "everything we do in connection with our work
at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible
standards of ethical business conduct"

And I would say in general, having once been a part of it, that parts of
Google's workforce are _quite_ convinced of their own moral superiority. Look
at the relentless feminist virtue circus around the firing of Damore, a man
whose crime was merely to point out that men and women have different
interests and that's why so many jobs have unbalanced ratios. The company's
top management went on TV and said they were convinced firing him was the
"right" thing to do.

Well you can't do all those things and then get upset when employees start
leaking behaviour they feel to be unethical. Live by the sword, die by the
sword.

Summary: Google gets shit for working on the drone strike program for money,
because (a) it has more money than it knows what to do with already and (b) it
has constantly claimed to be a new kind of tech company that is ethically
superior to the previous generation. Other firms lack either (a) or (b) or
both.

~~~
j2kun
> to point out that men and women have different interests

I was nodding until this. Even if you agree with Damore, you can't pretend his
argument was "men and women simply have different interests."

~~~
repolfx
I've read the memo and that was in fact his argument. What do you think his
argument was?

~~~
j2kun
I've read it many times, and I suggest you read it closer. Try applying that
same skeptic mindset used to defend him to the opposite perspective.

------
dayaz36
One of the contractual requirements for Google's acquisition of Deep Mind was
that their technology will never be used for military purposes. I wonder if
Google did this behind their back or Deep Mind is fully aware and is doing
this willingly?

"One constraint we do have— that wasn’t part of a committee but part of the
acquisition terms—is that no technology coming out of Deep Mind will be used
for military or intelligence purposes." -Demis Hassabis

~~~
repolfx
Feels good but is useless.

Google has its own AI research operation that's not the same as DeepMind. But
even if it didn't, all they'd have to do is wait for some third party
academics to publish a paper that improved slightly on a DeepMind paper, and
then they could use it and say the "technology" didn't come from DeepMind.
After all, where does tech come from? Standing on the shoulders of giants and
all that.

------
calibas
Is my moral compass off, or does war profiteering completely violate the whole
"don't be evil" thing?

~~~
killjoywashere
[deleted]

~~~
colordrops
No, your moral compass is off. The US has toppled a large number of sovereign
states that were not acting violently toward other nations, and installed
dictators and monarchs. The US supports Saudi Arabia, one of the most
authoritarian nations on earth, who backed an actual attack on US soil, and
yet they invade nations with false claims of WMD and kill hundreds of
thousands. To claim that the US is the police and not the thugs is to
completely ignore reality.

~~~
ChrisRackauckas
>To claim that the US is the police and not the thugs is to completely ignore
reality.

Or maybe the US just had a problematic idea of what police should be doing,
which explains a lot of our other problems.

~~~
colordrops
The agenda is so transparent that it can't be mistaken for incompetence.

------
reacharavindh
It isn't wrong of Google to work their country's military. If not Google, some
other company will take those contracts.

They need to own up the responsibility for their decisions and of course be
willing to put on with the media theme that "Google - the company that
supplies AI tech to the military with possible usage in war". Denying that is
what makes them look even fishier.

I already distrust the company for anything related to privacy. Just one more
reason to hate them more.

~~~
opportune
Nothing wrong with IBM helping the Nazis count prisoners. If not them, some
other company would have taken the contract

This absurdly cowardly thinking is how people justify atrocities for money

~~~
reacharavindh
Treating companies as social personalities is just stupid. Google is a
business, and it is there to make money (whilst not damaging itself too much
that it goes out of existence). My point is, that Google as a company(their
leadership) could choose to work with the military, and even openly build
weapons for a country, as long as that motive is public, and bear the hate
from public that they are a piece of shit company that whored out to the
military.

But, cat calling a company on forums whilst there are other companies that
openly build weapons is just useless in my opinion.

~~~
opportune
Essentially everything we do on forums is useless, I don’t know why calling a
company immoral is any different.

All businesses exist to make money but if the pushback to a publicly perceived
immoral act is great enough then they won’t do the immoral things. For
example, I can say as a software developer that I would prefer not to work at
google over my current employer because I don’t want to do immoral things. I
do have a perceived moral outlook of the company’s leadership as a whole and
that’s a decision that I can make. Not sure why you seem to think that’s
stupid

Also at the end of the day, nobody is absolved of guilt from doing something
just because it made them money. That’s possibly the dumbest way to justify
doing something as good

------
manigandham
The world runs on violence. It's the fundamental force that keeps things in
order. Modern society with all its rules and laws is nothing without
enforcement, which is ultimately delivered via a monopoly license granted to
the government with its military and police to keep everyone else safe and
free.

Being the best at deploying violence is how you defend against the chaos
elsewhere. This isn't about "evil corporations" or misguided intentions, it's
about human nature and how there will always be someone somewhere willing to
cause harm. The only way to defeat them is by being better at it, _but with
the appropriate judgement to make sure its in proper defense._

AI has already been a part of warfare for decades and the value of anything
other than being the best is rapidly diminishing because of the exponential
advantage that modern technology produces. You either stay ahead or lose the
war before it's ever begun. Given that choice, I would much rather have the
strongest military with all available resources and talent rather than worry
and hope the rest of the world stays friendly, until the day it isn't.

~~~
Regardsyjc
I agree.

I believe the only reason American civilians like us have been able to enjoy
peace is because we dropped a ton of bombs to blast tiny countries out of the
sky and we also have a history of fighting wars not to win, but not to lose.
If Americans are willing to sacrifice their people and resources for a tiny
country in the middle of nowhere, imagine what they would do to you if you
attacked them or their interests.

I was watching a documentary about the Schwarzman Scholars, and Schwarzman
said something like out of the 4 or 5 times where a superpower was challenged
by a new rising superpower, it led to armed conflict 3 times. I haven't been
able to find an article to back up this claim so would appreciate if anyone
could point out if it's blatantly wrong or if there's a source. Either way,
there might be a new superpower.

~~~
barrkel
> _I believe the only reason American civilians like us have been able to
> enjoy peace is because we dropped a ton of bombs to blast tiny countries out
> of the sky_

This is completely ludicrous. There is no military threat to the US beyond
nukes. Nuclear weapons have obsoleted wars between great powers. Tiny
countries are zero threat to the USA. They cannot invade; they can do almost
nothing. At best, they can kill a few hundred individuals at a time by
sponsoring terrorism, far fewer people than are killed by vehicles in an
average June.

The reason the USA starts wars in far away countries is to maintain a sphere
of influence and protect a philosophy of government and running economies that
keeps the USA affluent via trade. It is not, in no way, about defense of the
USA; if you really think that, you've been deeply hoodwinked by some military
warrior code bullshit. The USA's military program is foreign policy for,
ultimately, economic reasons.

~~~
ChristianBundy
Thank you for putting this into words. It's sad to see how effective the US
propaganda efforts have been in convincing otherwise intelligent people that
the military is "defending our freedom".

I'd love to see how many millions (billions?) the federal government has
pumped into this myth.

Hell, the entire America's Army initiative was literally a recruitment tool
for kids who played video games. It's depressing to think about the number of
kids who eventually paid a blood tax because a state-sponsored video game
convinced them to join.

~~~
manigandham
It's beyond naive to think that conflict doesn't exist or that tiny
fluctuations cant kick-start global warfare. It is very easy to take it for
granted when you have never experienced conflict yourself. Perhaps try talking
to the families of those who paid in blood to give you the freedom to post
these thoughts, and see exactly how many places like the US actually exist in
the world.

------
savanta
Maybe I'm wrong but based on my experience if you are a company who is
depending on end customers then you need to have a good reputation and a very
strong and positive brand.

Except your clients are totally dependent on your product with absolute zero
alternative choice.

Most military suppliers don't depend on private end customers so they can be
successful without worrying about public opinion.

I think Google is becoming more and more like companies Exxon Mobile or former
giants like Malboro. People absolutely need their products so they can do
whatever they want.

------
mturmon
This is actually _very_ interesting, being the first detailed info on this
work that I have seen. First, the scale (dollars/FTEs) of the work (and
proposed work) seems larger than in some earlier reporting. Bizdev people will
have incentive to boost projections, but even the current numbers seem higher.

Second, the little fact that “...On October 27, 2017, a team from Google Cloud
visited Beale Air Force Base...”. This indicates they were not just doing
basic research, but they were trying to (eventually) field something
operationally — not just develop basic technology and hand it off elsewhere
for maturation. Also, the reciprocal visit of the uniformed general [2]. The
presence of a general and entourage, probably also in uniform, makes a strong
impression on civilian computer technologists.

In the DoD world, there is a big difference between basic research (TRL 1-3,
say [1]) versus TRL 4-5 (component demos) versus TRL 6-8 (operational tests).
Basic research might be funded by DARPA and is pretty abstract, typically
publishable in the open literature.

As you work up toward operations, you start to deal directly with uniformed
“warfighters” and realistic test environments. It’s a very different set of
expectations. I think I understand better the reactions of many Googlers to
the work described.

(Note: not passing personal judgement - clearly I’ve spent some time in this
milieu — just observing that this work and its trappings is not what many
Googlers I have known would go for.)

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level)

[2] [http://www.af.mil/About-
Us/Biographies/Display/Article/10883...](http://www.af.mil/About-
Us/Biographies/Display/Article/108830/major-general-john-nt-jack-shanahan/)

------
wavefunction
That's exactly what I thought when the point was brought up that the contract
between Google and the DoD "was only for $9,000,000."

That's called getting your foot in the door.

------
nevir
The military is going to deploy deep learning on their drones, with or without
Google's help.

I'd rather have more people working on the problem than fewer. More scrutiny
should, at least, improve the work and reduce errors in the models (and,
hopefully, that leads to fewer casualties)

------
xab9
Now this world starting to feel more and more like a Gibson novel - while we
had been promised it's going to be an Asimov one. I feel cheated somehow.

------
bronzeage
Why US citizens hate their army so much? All i know is that if google
announced it's working with our army on some AI projects, the response would
be overwhelmingly positive, and people would praise Google for that.

(I'm from Israel if you're wondering)

And I think US are a minority in that the citizens despise their own
government and army this much. Which really makes you wonder what's the whole
point of democracy if you trust your own elected officials less than Russians
trust their corrupted monarch.

~~~
kome
well, why do Israelis love their army so much? I think to know the answer, but
be aware Israel is a very special case for so many reasons.

Edit: and the contrary is true, Americans loves their army, and they are all
about that "thank you for your service" rhetoric, so perhaps just Israel top
that.

~~~
myth_drannon
Most of Israelis serve in army that gives them an inside perspective of what
is Army, how it functions and its goals. Americans see it from the mass media
perspective only, which creates the same feelings in people like when non-
Israelis see the news on Gaza fighting - very superficial and inducing very
strong emotions. IMHO.

~~~
kome
Indeed, that's could be an explanation.

Also Switzerland has conscription / compulsory draft, and among a lot of
Swiss, the army is seen with sympathy.

That said, I met a couple of Israelis that left the country for good because
their experience with the army was _so_ bad. I guess that there is some
"voting with legs" going on.

------
itronitron
Gee, if only Google was part of a larger umbrella organization they could have
just transferred the project to a separate company and been done with it.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
If none of us buy that nonsense, why would Google employees? Alphabet =
Google. We all know that.

------
indescions_2018
There must be some hard data. Looking back over the last 40+ years. Were
research institutions that divested from defense funding during the Vietnam
era adversely impacted. Perhaps short term. But on long scales there has been
more than adequate consumer and private sector demand to compensate.

Politically, the company could face a backlash in the form of antitrust
scrutiny over search monopoly. Which Alphabet seems to be anticipating as
historical inevitability. With the foresight even that perhaps breaking up
large trusts is great for startup innovation ;)

But it raises the general question. If given the option of taking $ to do
basic science. Regardless of the funding entities motives. Do you do it
anyway? An argument can be made to always take the money and do the science.
You don't know what the world will look like in 10 years. Drone AI used for
surgical strikes today will probably be civilian transferred to AgTech and
planting seeds tomorrow. And there is always the possibility of a
breakthrough.

Among the many great examples are the Human Genome Project, the Manhattan
Project and DARPA Grand Challenge. Terrestrial plutonium enrichment may turn
out to be the key to deep space exploration, or space based defense. Early
DOE-funded genetics research was specifically interested in answering the
question: can we survive radiation induced mutations from the fallout of a
nuclear war? And less than two decades after a Humvee from CMU completed 8
miles on its own in the California desert we will see fleets of semi-
autonomous vehicles rolling out in major cities.

------
randcraw
Apparently Google has decided NOT to pursue this line of work after all:

[https://gizmodo.com/google-plans-not-to-renew-its-
contract-f...](https://gizmodo.com/google-plans-not-to-renew-its-contract-for-
project-mave-1826488620)

------
fdsak
probably this is the right time to introduce an oath sth like this one

[https://github.com/Widdershin/programmers-
oath](https://github.com/Widdershin/programmers-oath)

------
musicalentropy
For people who still don't see any problem in this, I have to remind you that
ultimately the guy on top of the military hierarchy in charge for selecting
the drones with AI targets is... Donald Trump. If you're not scared now, I
don't know what to do anymore.

At some point, I thought that the main goal of these big startups with tons of
claims and wishful thinking was to make the world a better place and help
humanity to become a better version of itself. Instead now they create tools
and weapons to "reduce collateral damages" in governemental induced wars
(which have not solved anything over the last 20 years in Middle East but only
increased cash flow in West pockets, made tons of death, both there and in
West countries), and they have access to information related with most of the
citizens at the same time. OK cool.

In 10 years we will talk about whistleblowers killed by drones using AI as
well.

~~~
azangru
> I have to remind you that ultimately the guy on top of the military
> hierarchy in charge for selecting the drones with AI targets is... Donald
> Trump

How can we be sure that this is so?

\- Can Trump make military decisions by himself (i.e. not choose among the
ones that are offered to him by the military)?

\- Hasn't it been established recently that the military have the right to
refuse his orders if they are particularly crazy (see e.g.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-
tru...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-north-
korea-crisis-nuclear-weapons-us-military-duty-refuse-illegal-instructions-
war-a8055991.html))?

------
eddd
I wouldn't blame Google for this. It's sole purpose is to make money. So they
make money wherever they can.

People voted for a government that bombs other people, that's a consequence.

------
amaccuish
People love to talk about Huawei's links to the People's Liberation Army, but
when Google starts working with the US military, it's somehow different.
Hmm...

~~~
kaonashi
China doesn’t have the same (recent) history of ‘military adventurism’.

------
IanDrake
Google developed a far left employee culture and then expected their employees
to help the military.

They don’t seem to understand how those two things are mostly incompatible.

------
beenBoutIT
If Google refused to work with our military, Microsoft's subpar AI and ethics
would power the drones and the project would move ahead.

~~~
blindwatchmaker
Having to deal with UI developed by Microsoft is the only thing that could
ever make me feel sorry for drone operators.

------
carapace
"I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" by Harlan Ellison

> The story takes place 109 years after the complete destruction of human
> civilization. The Cold War had escalated into a world war, fought mainly
> between China, Russia, and the United States. As the war progressed, the
> three warring nations each created a super-computer (with AI) capable of
> running the war more efficiently than humans.

> The machines are each referred to as "AM", which originally stood for
> "Allied Mastercomputer", and then was later called "Adaptive Manipulator".
> Finally, "AM" stands for "Aggressive Menace". One day, one of the three
> computers becomes self-aware, and promptly absorbs the other two, thus
> taking control of the entire war. It carries out campaigns of mass genocide,
> killing off all but four men and one woman.

> The survivors live together underground in an endless complex, the only
> habitable place left. The master computer harbors an immeasurable hatred for
> the group and spends every available moment torturing them. AM has not only
> managed to keep the humans from taking their own lives, but has made them
> virtually immortal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Scream)

------
LawnDart1
This is what T800-101 really looks like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper)

------
narrator
Meanwhile, in Syria:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5LdagBBo-k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5LdagBBo-k)

------
lucaspottersky
it sucks that companies have this tendency to become nasty business

------
ggm
Norbert Weiner

------
jdowner
Do no evil*

*conditions apply

------
fakescience
To any Google Employees reading this. Don't worry! There are SEVERAL ways you
can reduce any cognitive dissonance you might be experiencing as you read more
about the evils your company is committing :

\+ rationalization of your own behavior : "I'm not doing this work...I'm
working on projects that help people. And ads. But ads are pretty neutral
compared to bombing people."

\+ rationalization of others' behavior : "Bombing people isn't evil, since
it's helping the military kill MORE _bad guys_ and LESS good guys. And gals.
and children."

\+ change your thoughts about yourself : "Maybe I'm not as good of a person as
I thought I was..." [note : this one might be hardest to do!]

\+ change your own behavior : Quit Google, or even better organize your fellow
workers into some form of collective action (strike!) to remake the company
into something that better fits your values and ethics.

~~~
flatline
Or accept the reality that we live in a world that feels the need to kill
people. I think it would be swell to not need a military but the reality is
that we do. If you have qualms about working for Google as a defense
contractor, consider the implications of living in the US (or in all
likelihood wherever you happen to reside). Can you justify paying your taxes?
Can you justify voting for one of a handful of candidates for federal
government, all of whom are likely to support some form of military action or
other?

If a hostile foreign power was to invade your country, what would you want the
response to be? To what ends and what efforts should we support the military?

There are many ethically questionable choices we take for granted, especially
those of us that live in the West. Everything we consume has a taint of human
exploitation, environmental damage, contributes to oppressive regimes that
murder people, etc.

Where does it stop?

On the other hand, it sounds like the work Google was doing here was to
improve the relative safety of autonomous drone strikes. Oh, but if these
strikes remained risky and unreliable, we wouldn’t do them! Believe me, there
are a dozen other large defense contractors out there that will implement this
if Google doesn’t, so it’s not like it’s a binary proposition.

My point is, working for Google is not the right target on which to pin
arguments for or against the ethics of autonomous drone strikes.

~~~
pavelludiq
You need a military in order to prevent other people from bombing your
country. You absolutely do not need to bomb other people, and if fact if your
goal is to not get bombed, not bombing other people might be your best option
for a bunch of reasons[1]. If your goal is to systematically rob your
population of wealth by dumping insane amounts of money into an otherwise
mostly useless industry(you don't really need 12 carriers to defend your
country for example, they are mostly useless for defense), bombing other
people is a good option.

[1] not making additional enemies, not setting the precedent that it's ok to
bomb people, not driving away allies, not undermining your narrative that
you're a good guy and therefore attacking you is unjustifiable, etc. These are
just off the top of my head.

~~~
koolba
> You need a military in order to prevent other people from bombing your
> country. You absolutely do not need to bomb other people, and if fact if
> your goal is to not get bombed, not bombing other people might be your best
> option for a bunch of reasons.

And sometimes the best way to save lives of _your_ people is to bomb other
people.

That’s very naive. Not all antagonists are rational state actors. Terrorist
orgs like Al Qaeda or ISIS aren’t going to stop trying to kill you if you
ignore them. The only solution is direct action and only question becomes
who’s going to do it, i.e. the USA or a local proxy.

~~~
wongarsu
ISIS is a direct consequence of US interventions.

The Post-WWII history of the middle east mostly follows the pattern “US
declares $X evil. In its fight against $X, US supports $lesserEvil with money
and weapons. $Y years later $lesserEvil has used funding and weapons to grow
and become $greaterEvil. US declares $W as $lesserEvil and funds them.
Repeat.“

Short term that might seem smart, but do it long enough and you have a region
full of well armed splitter groups, are least half of which hate you.

The UdSSR/Russia isn't blameless either, but the most notable positive long
term effect of US actions in the middle east seem to be more jobs in the
military-industrial-complex.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
The pattern you're describing is unfortunately a pretty accurate reflection of
the post WWII history of the Middle East. However, consider how these mistakes
happened.

First there were the Nazis. They invaded half of Europe while the US remained
neutral until it was attacked by Japan in 1941. After the US and its allies
won the war, the overwhelming majority of Germans celebrated their liberation
and went on to become a prosperous ally of the US. Great success.

Then there was the cold war, which was essentially an attempt to prevent the
Soviets from achieving their avowed goal of world domination. Again, the US
and its allies won that conflict and the overwhelming majority of Eastern
Europeans are greatful for it. (Let's not get into a debate about the merits
of Socialism here. Soviet style totalitarianism and Stalinism isn't what most
on the left want nowadays. At least my Marxist friends don't)

So there were two very important historical episodes during which a refusal of
the US to do anything more than defend the homeland would have been
catastrophic. Unfortunately, this has lead to a doctrine of uncritical and
imprudent interventionism and to a refusal to learn from the many mistakes
that were made during the cold war, most importantly in the Middle East (but
also in Latin America).

My point is, even though your criticism of failed interventionist policies is
correct, it means little without also discussing the crucially important
successes of global US military power.

------
ctack
Sounds a lot like Google is going to start killing people.

------
49bc
If a company is going to build drone AI in use by the military, I feel MUCH
better knowing that company is google and not some poor-quality contracting
company.

