
Google Won't Renew Contract for Project Maven, Pentagon Drone AI Imaging Program - mark-ruwt
https://gizmodo.com/google-plans-not-to-renew-its-contract-for-project-mave-1826488620
======
C50VGicCxmHC
This will really hurt their enterprise cloud business. Google has shown to
have a bunch of employees who will leak confidential discussions to the press
and try to PR damage their employer. If you are a large company looking for a
home, that is exactly the kind of environment you want to avoid.

In addition, many of the large US companies have a military component.
Examples are GE, Boeing, United Technologies. How many of those companies want
something like what happened with Maven to happen to them.

Finally, the success of this project will further embolden Google employees to
use these same tactics of leaking and hurting Google's image in the future.
Given how things progress, the next protest is likely to be about something
that is even more gray area than Maven.

~~~
bitL
Who cares about Google? What Alphabet does, matters. A new subsidiary with
strict confidentiality? They can play with optimizing company structure
depending on the area of business as they like.

~~~
bbatsell
The contract in question was, in fact, with a totally separate company ("ECS
Federal") with confidentiality agreements. The Google execs, in
contemporaneous emails, knew from the beginning that it would be opposed and
did their utmost to conceal it while acknowledging it would probably leak and
suggesting they try to spin it in advance.

[https://theintercept.com/2018/05/31/google-leaked-emails-
dro...](https://theintercept.com/2018/05/31/google-leaked-emails-drone-ai-
pentagon-lucrative/)

------
strainer
This sends a more powerful message than if the corporation had just avoided
the work in the first place. I am hopeful and inspired by the employees stand.

Lights are shining through the cracks in the conflict dominated narrative of
these times, and we have never had greater means to analyse and resolve our
troubles with each other and with our environment.

Thankyou Googlers for showing up for resolution.

~~~
craftyguy
No it doesn't.

It still gives them between 6 months and 18 months (whenever the contract
expires in 2019) to continue working on this project. They may even finish it
during that timeframe. This is purely PR fluff.

~~~
strainer
Its not PR fluff that one of the worlds most prestigious workforces has
publicly rejected this kind of work. Money cant buy that quality of publicity,
it has come from the hearts and minds of the workforce.

~~~
craftyguy
If they had listened, they would pull out immediately. Not sure if you realize
that they'll continue working on this for a few more months before they are
out...

~~~
strainer
There is certainly going to be a special atmosphere while the few unlucky
engineers finish up the existing contract for legalities sake.

------
mkempe
Dystopia was hiding behind official lies, while already being in the works:
"The emails also show that Google and its partners worked extensively to
develop machine learning algorithms for the Pentagon, with the goal of
creating a sophisticated system that could surveil entire cities. ... 'the
wisdom and strength of our people will bring about multi-order-of-magnitude
improvements in safety and security for the world' ... Google intended to
build a 'Google-earth-like' surveillance system ... Google’s artificial
intelligence would bring 'an exquisite capability' for 'near-real time
analysis'" paired with drone-killing.

[added for the down-haters]

Examples of the lies:

\- concerned employees were told that Google’s DoD contract was worth only $9
million

\- "Google downplayed its work, saying it had merely provided its open-source
TensorFlow software to the Pentagon"

In the name of building real-time, total surveillance in support of automated
killing by drones.

------
aregsar
While there are good intentions here, what happens if China and Russia
military get ahead of US military in this technology due to us limiting
ourselves

~~~
ajross
That's where I am too. I mean, war stuff is bad, it kills people, and the US
certainly isn't 100% trustworthy.

At the same time... there's a real don't-rock-the-boat problem here. The last
3/4 of a century of US military dominance has been notable for a decrease in
military/para-military violence on an order that humanity literally has never
seen. It's not zero for sure, it's not always just, we may not always be the
good guys, but seriously: if you are a random person anywhere in the world,
you are _vastly_ less likely to be killed by someone's bullet than you were
pre-WW2. And that's important.

A world without a dominant US military is a world with fewer US-driven
injustices. That doesn't seem like a good bet to be a "better world", though.

~~~
cryptoz
> the US certainly isn't 100% trustworthy.

The US is the most wildly insane, two-faced and upside-down country in the
world right now in terms of military. The commander-in-chief routinely makes
nuclear threats, actively hurts his own citizens in times of need, and seeks
to decrease military stability by accelerating climate change and isolating
his country from the world. The commander-in-chief lies about every single
thing in his day-to-day life, as well as his political life; he is mentally
unstable and not fit to serve.

The US military is _100% untrustworthy_ as its direct leader has shown himself
to be literally insane.

> there's a real don't-rock-the-boat problem here

The US is the one rocking the boat. It has already happened and it happens
daily.

> A world without a dominant US military is a world with fewer US-driven
> injustices. That doesn't seem like a good bet to be a "better world",
> though.

I disagree. That seems like a very incredibly great bet, to me. The time of US
military leadership is over. That happened the day our Military Commander In
Chief stood on his inauguration day and lied about the number of people in
front of him.

Perhaps the US will return to a positive leading role one day, but it is not
there now and it has not been for years.

All this aside, I do not agree that Google is the right place to develop US
Military technology.

Edit: Additionally, the commander-in-chief of the US military also stated
point blank that we may not have presidential elections any more in the
future. This is not a time to champion US democracy, military might, etc.

~~~
irq
Instead of downvoting cryptoz, I encourage people to counter what he said with
their own replies. The majority of his statements in this post are verifiable
facts. (I do not know this person, fwiw).

~~~
manfredo
The individual facts are verifiable, but the overall conclusion that "the US
is the most wildly insane, two-faced and upside-down country in the world
right now in terms of military" is a borderline troll comment - I sense a
strong possibility that it is meant to elicit a reaction rather than engage in
a dialogue. Not to the point that I'd advocate its removal, but enough for me
to downvote and not respond.

Seriously, the US is more insane than North Korea, a country that routinely
launches ballistic missiles over countries that are essentially in a state of
cold war with it? The United States' military position is more unstable than
Venezuela, a county that is imprisoning it's own brass and experiencing large
scale desertion[1] to the point that it's speculated that there may be a coup
soon? I do not believe a reasonable person make either of these claims.

[1] [http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-
world/world/americas/...](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-
world/world/americas/venezuela/article204927784.html)

~~~
cryptoz
I am not trolling. That's ridiculous. I'm merely speaking the truth.

And yes I would make both of those claims. And I am a reasonable person. If
you think that my statements above make me an "unreasonable person" just for
my comments of fact and opinion, then you are the one trolling and attempting
to invalidate my entire existence as a person.

I stand by my points.

------
LinuxBender
If they give the project a new name, I vote for "Blackbriar".

~~~
DragonBourne
That could be how they came up with "Maven" in the first place, and not the
Java framework.

------
AdamM12
Engineer's that were working on this should quit and form their own company to
continue the work. Whether the drones can autonomously fire or not is a
legislative issue. Cloud cert would be a big issue unless they can resell AWS
which I believe already has it.

------
lawrenceyan
[https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/8jhxek/e...](https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/8jhxek/ethical_considerations_of_working_at_a_military/)

------
finnthehuman
So is Google going to keep up this trend of self-criticism? Or have we finally
found out how google defines "evil," and it's only things that involve literal
killing?

------
em3rgent0rdr
Google drops another endeavor. Add it to the graveyard.

------
kozikow
Great. There will be plenty of people willing to take Google's place.

~~~
droopyEyelids
Willing, but capable? Who has the AI, Maps, signals intelligence, and
everything else capability to replace Google?

~~~
microcolonel
Baidu. ;- )

------
ocdtrekkie
The thing I think everyone needs to remember for the future is that Google is
only backing off on Maven because of the bad PR. They aren't suddenly growing
a conscience, and you can be sure that given the chance to secretly get
involved in a horribly unethical program for hundreds of millions of dollars
is still definitely an option for them.

~~~
cromwellian
That may be a component, but IMHO, pronouncements and explanations haven't
diminished employee objections to say the least.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
_Corporations_ have no ethics or morals, though. Google has no conscience of
it's own. Employees can perhaps keep it in check, for a while. But the notion
that people have held that Google is good for society is a myth, and people
are increasingly realizing it.

Sure, employees may continue to protest actions like this in the future... if
they find out about them. Bear in mind, a significant component of this
incident involved Google lying and downplaying the importance of this project.

Shortly after yesterday's article containing leaked emails, a Googler
expressed public shame of having promoted articles by one of the people in
said emails, which explicitly talked about concealing Google's involvement
with the military implementing AI, and shortly thereafter, announced intention
to leave. This person had blocked me a mere couple months ago for saying that
"Google is not worth saving", and today, perhaps they'd agree with me.

Eventually, Google will cross a line that everyone considers too far. For me,
it was several years ago. For this individual, it was yesterday. How long will
Google have people there who still object to the behavior the company engages
in? Where's your line?

~~~
cromwellian
This is bigger than Google. Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Oracle, Palantir, et
al, will take this contract next. Google isn't the only company that can run
DNNs to do image classification, it's commodified now. The DoD is going to pay
money to get this software, it's inevitable, just like they got the Hydrogen
bomb, and ICBMs, and biological weapons. Enough people exist out there who are
smart and willing to work on it for money, only it won't leak, and won't be
public.

The public needs to take this event as a canary in the coal mine. Congress
needs to limit AI use in the military. If it took Google to scare everyone
into finally regulating this, than so be it, but there needs to be
transparency and oversight and limits imposed by democracies on this, just
like regulations on chemical and biological weapons.

Perhaps we need an "AI Weapons Proliferation treaty" or something. But the
future of war is automated drone killing machines, they're just way cheaper to
built and deploy and less risky. You can build hundreds of automated drones
for the cost of one B-2 bomber, and mount a saturation offense against any
defender.

People need to widen their gaze from fixation on Silicon Valley. The problem
is in Washington, the problem is a $700 billion defense budget, a war on
terror, and extrajudicial drone assassinations. Everyday people on HackerNews
are complaining about ad tracking, navel gazing their industry, meanwhile,
they silently accept their own governments tracking people and killing them
with hellfire missiles. (I get that people feel helpless with respect to
resisting the military industrial complex and feel they can have some say over
an industry they're more closing associated with, but I'm pretty sure there's
plenty of HN readers who actually favor the US military empire)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Presumably, a talented software engineer has literally hundreds of other
options besides Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Oracle, and Palantir
though, right?

I agree we need strict regulations on the use of AI in the military. It
carries the same risks as nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons
for disproportionate harm, but without the extreme cost.

 _" I'm pretty sure there's plenty of HN readers who actually favor the US
military empire"_

From the comments of many of the people defending Google's involvement in
Project Maven, I am quite confident, unfortunately, that you are correct there
as well.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Talented engineers do have a choice but Google has been the most desired place
to work for a very long time.

In the last 10 years they have been the #1 place to work 6 of the last 10
years.

[http://fortune.com/best-companies/2017/](http://fortune.com/best-
companies/2017/)

[http://reviews.greatplacetowork.com/2016-fortune-100-best-
co...](http://reviews.greatplacetowork.com/2016-fortune-100-best-companies-to-
work-for-list)

[http://fortune.com/best-companies/2015/](http://fortune.com/best-
companies/2015/)

[http://fortune.com/best-companies/2014/](http://fortune.com/best-
companies/2014/)

So in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 it has been Google.

That does not just happen. Plus we have not had anyone else do it 2 years in a
row let alone 6 straight years!

Plus a lot of engineers want to work someplace that is interested in the
greater good.

So do things like what Google did in China with leaving instead of doing what
was morally wrong for a buck.

Also a lot of the top engineers want to publish and share and Google allows
their engineers to do this.

Google does tons of open source also which is attractive to engineers.

The younger people are much more into companies interested in the greater good
then just to make a buck.

It is why you see Google on top of the list so often and a company like
Microsoft way down on the list and do not think has ever been a top company?

------
mkempe
They are building real-time, total surveillance in support of automated
killing by drones, supported by almost all of Google's existing commercial
projects (Earth-wide mapping, detailed street maps, business directories,
phone-tracked location...).

The NSA programs disclosed by Snowden seem childish by comparison.

------
dfsegoat
Anyone else have a problem with this? Someone else will be doing this work in
place of Google, as it is inevitable that AI and defense will merge. So for
those reasons, IMO, it is childish to quit and try to not assert some ethical
control over something while you can.

Maybe the next co. who fills the contract will be the one where the AI
engineers who quit now work?

TLDR: Get the program killed, or control it on your terms ethically. Don't
pass it off on the next highest bidder.

~~~
jdashg
Is there an ethical approach to making drones better at killing people?

~~~
dfsegoat
Yes according to the Red Cross, and experts in International Human Law (aka
The Rules of War) - there is an obligation for people to develop these systems
(or not) responsibly and TO ALWAYS KEEP A HUMAN IN THE LOOP [1].

Note Nov 2017 was the first annual meeting: the law on this is literally being
determined on the fly, so simply running from it rather than providing input
and working to determine limits isn't very helpful.

[https://www.icrc.org/en/document/expert-meeting-lethal-
auton...](https://www.icrc.org/en/document/expert-meeting-lethal-autonomous-
weapons-systems)

[https://www.un.org/disarmament/publications/occasionalpapers...](https://www.un.org/disarmament/publications/occasionalpapers/unoda-
occasional-papers-no-30-november-2017/)

~~~
sitkack
That has nothing to do ML and the statistical targeting of people based on
behavior.

------
mtgx
I imagine that in the 2-3 years this contract run, Google shared most of what
they needed to share with the Pentagon in order to catch-up to the company's
current AI capabilities.

~~~
Rebelgecko
I doubt that. It's what, a $9 million contract? Assuming Google is making a
profit or at least breaking even, I'd doubt there's more than 15 or so people
working on this full time.

~~~
mkempe
This $9m amount was a lie by Google management to the employees. The actual
project revenue is much higher, and was planned to reach $250m.

------
sqdbps
Congrads google activists you have hurt your employer's business and business
prospects and prevented your colleagues from working on really interesting AI
applications relegating their life's work to sorting photo albums.

Oh, and none of that will make a difference because a competitor of yours will
pick up the slack and be in a position to offer really interesting work to
attract and retain researchers.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
If we cannot find better applications for so-called AI than bullshit like
sorting photo albums and military applications, maybe we should not do it at
all?

I am still sure there are enough industrial, medical and civil applications
for Google to work on, no need to resort to "photo albums" immediately.

~~~
melling
That’s sort of an academic answer. Perhaps Google should go straight for
creating the Singularity?

Business works by creating a product that someone will pay for. Then they
reinvest those profits, grow the company, etc to improve that product.

Maybe we’ll eventually get the robotic butler that consumers will pay for, but
in the meantime the Apple II robotic/AI revolution has been a little slow to
materialize.

~~~
simion314
But as an employee why should I like what the management wants, I think is
your duty to speak if you consider that management does something bad and
resign if you don't want to participate. My goal is not to make money for my
boss/company, I personally get satisfaction when our customers are happy. If
Google management does not like developers with this kind of ideals they
should say it in their recruitment announcement that you should be OK with
working with the military and spy agencies.

