
We work for Google. Our employer shouldn't be in the business of war - omnimus
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/04/google-ceo-drones-ai-war-surveillance
======
merricksb
Duplicate of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16755530](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16755530),
which is still in the middle of the front page after 21 hours, and links to
the text of this letter.

~~~
omnimus
Sorry didnt see that one.

But honestly it is not duplicate. But whatever.

~~~
merricksb
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.

[1]
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20significant%20new%20inf...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20significant%20new%20information&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

------
sureaboutthis
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?

~~~
kuschku
Google also has employees in different countries.

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.

~~~
wil421
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.

~~~
kingkongjaffa
ITAR Rules for rocketry technology is absolutely not the same thing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations)

~~~
wil421
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.

------
docdeek
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.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Yeah. Sort-of like all those people that continually threaten to leave
Facebook...

------
tapatio
You are not forced to work at Google. Go work somewhere else.

~~~
coldtea
They are also not forced to not voice their concern.

~~~
archagon
There’s a lot of disconcerting “shut up and mind your own business” quips
against these Googlers in this thread.

Whatever happened to standing up for what you believe in?

~~~
coldtea
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".

~~~
archagon
Sorry, me as well! I wasn't aiming at you, but rather doubling down on your
sentiment.

------
some_account
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.

~~~
paulie_a
Google is an ad company.

Let's not pretend it is anything more.

------
sremani
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.

~~~
tazjin
While Google is technically an American company, US citizens make up a
minority of their user base.

How do you define "homeland" here? What if Google's foreign subsidiaries
participate in project "Maven" in some way?

This doesn't seem "tough" to me at all.

------
Density
No sympathy for censorship or building a police state.

~~~
walshemj
yes and as google tracks more about the population does than any TLA and with
zero oversight.

------
alslsls
1\. Companies are not democratic. 2\. Being good at war is a good thing.

~~~
coldtea
> _1\. Companies are not democratic_

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?

~~~
kingkongjaffa
> 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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

Or it might be a mix of both.

------
jedimastert
I wonder if "Don't be evil" is still in their code of conduct...

~~~
PurpleRamen
It starts with them: [https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-
conduct.html](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html)

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Wow, they've sure watered-down "Don't be evil":

"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?

------
walshemj
Ok so 3000 signed it I bet in a secret ballot the vast majority of google
employees are not bothered or are in favor

------
coldcode
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.

