Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Workers Urge CEO To Pull Out of Pentagon AI Project (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the don't-be-evil dept.

Thousands of Google employees, including dozens of senior engineers, have signed a letter protesting the company's involvement in a Pentagon program that uses artificial intelligence to interpret video imagery and could be used to improve the targeting of drone strikes (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source). From a report: The letter, which is circulating inside Google and has garnered more than 3,100 signatures, reflects a culture clash between Silicon Valley and the federal government that is likely to intensify as cutting-edge artificial intelligence is increasingly employed for military purposes. "We believe that Google should not be in the business of war," says the letter, addressed to Sundar Pichai, the company's chief executive. It asks that Google pull out of Project Maven, a Pentagon pilot program, and announce a policy that it will not "ever build warfare technology."

That kind of idealistic stance, while certainly not shared by all Google employees, comes naturally to a company whose motto is "Don't be evil," a phrase invoked in the protest letter. But it is distinctly foreign to Washington's massive defense industry and certainly to the Pentagon, where the defense secretary, Jim Mattis, has often said a central goal is to increase the "lethality" of the United States military.

37 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Business as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of helping them to make drone strikes more accurate, let's let the Pentagon continue to hit civilian bystanders too.

    1. Re:Business as usual by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

      I'm kind of surprised the engineers, of all people, don't remember the lesson from history that an AI would hopefully learn that the only winning move is not to play.

    2. Re:Business as usual by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, that's it. This discussion's pretty well covered, now.

      Seriously, this is exactly the dilemma. Back when I did defense work (connected distantly to attacks), nobody ever had intention of hitting civilians. It was bad intel, bad guidance, or just a plain and simple screwup. We just kept trying to be better, adding more confirmations, better cameras, better training... and slowly things got better.

      None of those improvements were cheap. A small improvement in image quality might mean a few hundred million dollars in expenses, mostly in paperwork to track exactly what work happened where and how, but if it provides the critical information to prevent a single bad mission, it's worth the price.

      It's not a popular opinion, but it seems to me that war is inevitable. People are always finding new means and reasons to kill each other, and they'll do it with or without my help. The best we can do as engineers is to make sure that the attacks are as precise and successful as possible, to minimize the innocent casualties.If an AI can tell the difference in 10 pixels between a firearm flash or the sun reflecting off a camera lens, I'm all in favor of it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Business as usual by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AI might come to that conclusion. Image recognition and guidance algorithms won't. We're not dealing with AI. We never are.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Business as usual by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Informative

      People are always finding new means and reasons to kill each other, and they'll do it with or without my help. The best we can do as engineers is to make sure that the attacks are as precise and successful as possible, to minimize the innocent casualties.If an AI can tell the difference in 10 pixels between a firearm flash or the sun reflecting off a camera lens, I'm all in favor of it.

      100 years ago, the belief was that war could be ended if there were only more powerful weapons. Those weapons were created, and their creators went on to regret creating them. Sure, people will continue to kill each other, but they can do it without my help.

      History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.

      I became an engineer to make the world better, not to tear it apart.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:Business as usual by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.

      That would make it a negative sum game.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re: Business as usual by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.

      This is by far the stupidest comment I've read in recent history. A zero sum game is, by definition, one in which a win for one side is a proportional loss for the other. If I want to play and you don't, you lose by default.

      You have to be completely ignorant of human history to decide that "not playing" is a winning move.

    7. Re:Business as usual by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      100 years ago, the belief was that war could be ended if there were only more powerful weapons. Those weapons were created, and their creators went on to regret creating them.

      Considering the U.S. and Soviet Union never went to direct war against each other, and that the eventual resolution to the Cold War was based on economics and politics, it seems to have worked. If you look at all the wars since Nagasaki was bombed, they've between two non-nuclear states, or between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state. The nuclear states have steadfastly avoided direct war against each other. Even when one forcibly invades and annexes territory which belongs to a non-nuclear state that other nuclear states have sworn to defend (ironically in exchange for giving up their nukes).

      History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.

      War is a zero sum game. But choosing not to play does not mean you're no longer a player - it does not raise an invincible shield around you. You simply get attacked and conquered by someone who plays, and the effect of your choice is nullified when you cease to exist. Your assets and resources get transferred to your conquerer. Choosing not to play doesn't mean you don't participate in the zero sum the game; it means you end up guaranteed to in the negative half of the zero sum game. It's like thermodynamics. Everyone likes to dream of all the things that are possible if you could simply quit the game. But the reality is that you're not allowed to quit. Even if every country and every person on Earth disarmed, all it would take is for one person to sharpen a stick and mug someone with it to start the process all over again.

      War exists because of a simple economic reality - it's often cheaper to simply take assets and resources from your neighbors rather than work to build them up yourself. If you abstain from preparing for war, you do nothing to change that fundamental economic incentive. The way to avoid war is to make it more expensive for someone to take your assets and resources from you, than they stand to gain by taking them.

      I became an engineer to make the world better, not to tear it apart.

      From an engineering perspective, you strive to make the world a better place, and to protect the better place you've made. If your government chooses to misuse the tools you've created to wage unjust wars, then the solution to that is a political modification of your government, not abstention. Abstention means someone who doesn't share your ideals invades and takes everything you've created for themselves.

    8. Re:Business as usual by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      Some of us are willing to die at the hands of a bad person than be the so-called good person with a gun. It is a hard stance to hold to some days, I admit -- there are real evils in the world, and consistently saying, "I will not meet violence with more violence," is very hard. The temptation to say, "ISIS needs to be destroyed," or whatever the enemy is, is very strong. But I do believe that in aggregate, we are better off the more of us that insist on non-violence, and getting my country to the position of non-violence starts with me taking that position personally. And that means my work.

    9. Re:Business as usual by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Nope. In 1982, Argentina attacked the Falklands/Malvinas, despite the fact that Britain was a nuclear power that could wipe out most Argentinian cities quite easily. That was one war not deterred by nukes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Update from Google by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google announces a massive layoff of more than 3100 employees after it was found they said something politically incorrect or something like that... whatever.

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  3. Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They apparently have no problem with their employer providing anonymized telephone service to illegal telemarketers.

  4. comes naturally by micahraleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "comes naturally to a company whose motto is "Don't be evil,""

    Naturally ... the military is evil.

    You don't have to really make that interpretation on your own.

    See we have these helpful smart people to tell us how to form opinions.

    In addition to figuring out how to search web pages what else would any engineer naturally learn really good?

    The military does evil things.

    Of course !!

    Please don't bother disagreeing with this. We are all very mentally exhausted from all the smart things we do all the time. Rubix cube pagaentry and all that takes its toll, so don't be an insensitive clod.

  5. For some reason this story made me think of this: by powerlord · · Score: 4, Funny

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Writi...

    (worth a short read and funny as heck)

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  6. Here's an idea... by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (Just sayin..) If you don't like what the company you work for does, it might be time to find a new place to work... Just tell HR on your way out the door why you are leaving. Trust me, it will have a bigger impact than this PR campaign to shame your employer into refusing business that you don't personally like, with the added bonus that it won't run the risk of getting you branded a troublemaker or having to get fired. It's never a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Here's an idea... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're assuming that all the people in that paygrade are peacenik SJWs who have no qualms spitting on the idea of having a military all while working to build their own little Oceania. People like that are vocal, but they are a minority view, even within Big Tech. There are other 300k-500k people who don't have any such qualms that will take their place. And if the SJWs depart en masse, they'd be more inclined to work at a place like Google.

    2. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quitting would be a reasonable third step, but it's pretty stupid to quit as a first step. First complain, then petition, then quit. If an employee quits first, then they're not giving management a chance to respond/react and improve the situation.

      Also, if all the people opposed to the project quit, then no one at Google will be opposed to the project and it will continue. Quitting first just gives the company a clear path to keep doing what they are doing.

      When something like this comes up it is important to try to fix it from within first. If that fails, then quit on principle.

    3. Re:Here's an idea... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      You know it's condescending bullshit like that which helped Trump win, right?

      Yup, and it's a damn good thing he did.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  7. Too late... by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 2

    They gave up on the whole "don't be evil" schtick a long time ago...

  8. WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is be by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's a good point, to be balanced against the initial gut-reaction of not wanting your technology to be used militarily. Until fairly recently, war was waged by destroying the enemy *country*. Now we target individuals and small groups. We can do that now because we have accurate targeting.

    In world war 2, only 20% of bombs hit within 1,000 feet of the target. Most hit within a mile radius, so the real target was something like "the west side of the city". By the gulf war, target radius was 10 meters, 30 feet. We could bomb a vehicle instead of a neighborhood.

    If you are against war, it is clearly better to destroy a given vehicle than an entire neighborhood. Therefore more accurate targeting is better, it reduces deaths and injuries.

  9. Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That article could have made some great points if it backed up any of its assertions with facts and data, and avoided terms like "white patriarchy" as its scapegoat.

  10. WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is former senior CIA officer Michael Scheuer explaining the concept of "blowback."

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

    The U.S. government's interventionist foreign policy has sparked countless wars and inspired nearly every major Islamic terrorist movement in modern history. The military is the most expensive, destructive big government program of all. If you value peace and safety, BRING THE TROOPS HOME.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Globalism is as globalism does by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't forget why it is that you're able to have the cushy jobs and the confidence to stick your necks out like that, snowflakes. That security comes from the barrel of a gun pointed at your country's enemies. That's why we have governments and why we have militaries: to defend your rights and freedoms against people who might want to take them from you. Living in a Potemkin techno-utopia you might forget that, but it's still true even if you don't realize it. This sort of thing isn't a good look. Makes you all look like children.

  13. Re:Killing is evil. by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Murder is inherently evil, but killing isn't. Otherwise you could extend the same logic to conclude the jailing people indefinitely is inherently evil as well. There are some terrible people in the world intent on terrible actions. Killing them (or imprisoning them for the remainder of their days) results in a net reduction in the amount of suffering and evil in the world.

    Right now the tools that we have at our disposal not only kill the intended target, but typically a few other people who may not need killing or are perhaps completely innocent such that no one could claim that they deserve any rebuke, let alone death. Unfortunately that collateral damage doesn't do enough to outweight the benefit from killing those who need to be killed. Improving our tools would allow us to spare those innocents from an unfortunate fate. One could just as well argue that refusing to make a better tool that would reduce collateral damage is morally evil.

    Perhaps in the future we'll have even better tools and it won't be necessary to kill anyone at all, but that does us little good in the here and now, and we're unlikely to make an immediate leap to that point without the same kind of gradual and incremental improvement that drives humanity forward.

  14. And the SJW parade marches on by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a conservative, I have to admit I pretty much poo-pooh'd the Left's paranoia being victimized by big data and government; TBTH I assumed it would probably end up being my side that was going to be doing any of the oppressive stuff so I was probably ok.

    But how the tables have turned: now the Leftists at Google have made me actually start to get nervous about how they're going to use my data - my searches, my friends, the things I think are important - against me "for my own good" of course.

    I watch Demolition Ranch and occasionally watch gun reviews on Youtube. Has google accumulated a "crazy ass gun fanatic" file on me, and thus decided to single me out for special watching, filtering what I'm going to get from searches or even Cambridge Analytica-style aggressive, 'therapeutic' propaganda to "correct" my clearly aberrant leanings?

    Thanks google, for making me think like the paranoid nutballs I generally mock.

    --
    -Styopa
  15. Re: WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You clearly know nothing about foreign affairs. Look up Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), as well as the work of Chalmers Johnson and Robert Pape.

    The military is the biggest of all big government programs. Nothing wastes more money than the military, not to mention the human cost.

    It is impossible to claim to be for "limited government" and simultaneously be an imperial warmonger.

    As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state."

  16. Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Take your own advice.

    Monroe only thought the US owned half the world.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. The motto has changed by sTERNKERN · · Score: 2

    It used to be "Don't do evil". Now it says "Do the right thing.". People should have seen this coming from miles away.

  18. It's better to be able to fight and not have to by MNNorske · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I seriously feel like I'm constantly living through the adage of "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Most of these people who don't want the military fail to remember what happened the last time we decided we didn't need a big military and we shouldn't get entangled in other people's fights. That fight came home to us here via an attack at Pearl Harbor which we were ill prepared to defend against because we stopped preparing to fight effectively.

    My father is a US Marine, retired. One thing he told me that was instilled into him by the corps that has always stuck in my mind is "never start a fight, but if you find yourself in one be damned sure you finish it." I want the men and women who serve our country and our allies to be able to come home and the end of the day and hug their spouses and children. And, if that means that we give them the tools to do their job then I will be happy to help them get those tools.

    I would be incredibly happy if we never again had to send men and women off to fight a war. And, I really would like to see the day when no one goes off to war. But, as long as there are bad people in this world who try to hurt people, dictators, despots, petty warlords, etc... then we need a military that can protect us and sometimes goes abroad to stop the bad people over there before they can come here and hurt people.

    As for why we keep getting embroiled in wars much of it stems from a post WWII mentality developed by the US and the UK. If you've never read Churchill's writings I encourage you to. He may be a bit full of himself, but he laid out a lot of WWII and the immediate aftermath quite well and you will learn a lot of at least what he thought during the war years. But, he calls out that the US and UK looked at the war and never wanted something like it to happen again. They saw a rising threat in the old Soviet Union especially after the Soviets didn't retreat from the European countries they "liberated" during the war. And, those leaders decided the best defense was a strong offense.

    So we keep seeking out conflicts while they hopefully remain "smaller" and before they can grow into something the likes of WWII. We keep trying to contain threats and neutralize them before they can become another Pearl Harbor or a Poland. Yes, that means we fight. Yes, that means some people die. But, better fewer people while a conflict can remain relatively small than after it has grown beyond hopes of containment and impacts too many people.

    "We learn karate so that we don't have to use karate." Those are some of the first words my sensei in college ever said to my class in college. I think it's a very apt statement. We learn to fight, so that hopefully we never have to fight. Because if the other guy knows that we can and will fight back he might just not want to fight us at all. I know very few men and women in the military who want to get shot at or die. I know quite a few who want to go home to their spouses and their children and be proud of what they do and not be haunted by nightmares or suffer PTSD. Let's make sure they have the tools to do their jobs so that they can come home, and that they don't have to fight, or at least if they have to that they can limit who gets hurt.

    1. Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Problem is, with the possible exception of Afghanistan, US foreign policy since the resolution of that Pearl Harbour thing has basically been about starting an almost continuous string of fights.

    2. Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to by thrich81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Though the US has definitely been too cavalier about throwing its military around since WWII, I can think of two counterexamples to your statement. The Korean War in the 50's was started by an invasion of the South by N. Korea, which was a USSR client at the time.
      The 'first' Gulf War in the 90's was started by an invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
      You can argue whether the US should have intervened in either, but the US didn't start either one and especially in the case of Korea didn't want that fight at the time given how quickly the S. Korea/US/UN forces were so quickly overwhelmed at the beginning.

  19. Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is that we're not at war. Or, maybe more accurately, we've always been at war with Eurasia. Improved accuracy finally realizes the dream of the US government to kill individuals from the air--in the future maybe from orbit. The concept that this is about protecting civilians is pretty laughable though.

    In World War 2 if they had better targeting they would have killed more civilians, not less. The US and UK didn't firebomb Dresden and Tokyo by accident. At some level civilians were considered an acceptable target because they provided the continued means to wage war. Do you honestly think this is radically different today? Better facial recognition might improve accuracy on only killing the intended target, but are any of the intended targets not civilians? We're left with the words of US Intelligence to judge whether a person deserves execution.

    I find the power and convenience of drone strikes frightening. I don't think making them better in any way is actually a real improvement.

    PS - The real truth to me is the Military Industrial Complex wants the targeting because it costs money. As another poster pointed out, a small improvement in improving the targeting costs millions. Slightly better body armor costs millions more. It's all a game to drive up the cost of war because all the feigning of concern for life is good for business. At best that is secondary because clearly the goal is to kill people.

  20. Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is by Whorhay · · Score: 2

    There is a lot to be said though for keeping war messy. If it becomes to sterile and clean then the disincentive to engage in it starts to wane. In the US we already have enough trouble reigning in war hawks that want to use military might to resolve every conflict. Being in their positions of power largely protects them and their families from the dangers of war while they get to engage in profiting from it. Personally I'd like to see every congress critter be required to serve on the front lines as a non-combatant in a, non-leadership position, whenever the troops deploy. I figure after a few rounds of that they'd have little trouble finding peaceful resolutions to more conflicts.

  21. Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    I figure after a few rounds of that they'd have little trouble finding peaceful resolutions to more conflicts.messy

    Damn Straight. We have to many leaders willing to lead from behind. Let a few congress critters or members of their immediate family spend some time getting shot at. I bet some minds will be changed pretty damn quick about somethings.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  22. Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

    "What next? Sending troops and predators to the Mexican border?"

    Yes, this is next. A permeable border is a strategic flaw that can lead to military incursion, but is more likely to be the source of economic and cultural warfare which will weaken, divide, and subvert a country. Any sensible country which possesses the economic and military wherewithal to defend their borders will do so.

    It remains to be seen if the US will ever have such sensibility in its people and leaders.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  23. Why do you think we stopped carpet bombing? by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > The concept that this is about protecting civilians is pretty laughable though.
    >In World War 2 if they had better targeting they would have killed more civilians, not less.
    > Do you honestly think this is radically different today?

    Since the late 1950s we've had bombers that can carry 35 TIMES as much bomb payload as the largest bombers as WW2. A single B-52 sortie can level an area 1 mile by 2 miles. We stopped doing that the instant we got reliable precision guided bombs in the late 1970s. Why do YOU think that is?