Slashdot Mirror
Google Promises Ethical Principles To Guide Development of Military AI (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Google is drawing up a set of guidelines that will steer its involvement in developing AI tools for the military, according to a report from The New York Times. What exactly these guidelines will stipulate isn't clear, but Google says they will include a ban on the use of artificial intelligence in weaponry. The principles are expected to be announced in full in the coming weeks. They are a response to the controversy over the company's decision to develop AI tools for the Pentagon that analyze drone surveillance footage.
Internal emails obtained by the Times show that Google was aware of the upset this news might cause. Chief scientist at Google Cloud, Fei-Fei Li, told colleagues that they should "avoid at ALL COSTS any mention or implication of AI" when announcing the Pentagon contract. "Weaponized AI is probably one of the most sensitized topics of AI -- if not THE most. This is red meat to the media to find all ways to damage Google," said Li. But Google never ended up making the announcement, and it has since been on the back foot defending its decision. The company says the technology it's helping to build for the Pentagon simply "flags images for human review" and is for "non-offensive uses only." The contract is also small by industry standards -- worth just $9 million to Google, according to the Times.
Internal emails obtained by the Times show that Google was aware of the upset this news might cause. Chief scientist at Google Cloud, Fei-Fei Li, told colleagues that they should "avoid at ALL COSTS any mention or implication of AI" when announcing the Pentagon contract. "Weaponized AI is probably one of the most sensitized topics of AI -- if not THE most. This is red meat to the media to find all ways to damage Google," said Li. But Google never ended up making the announcement, and it has since been on the back foot defending its decision. The company says the technology it's helping to build for the Pentagon simply "flags images for human review" and is for "non-offensive uses only." The contract is also small by industry standards -- worth just $9 million to Google, according to the Times.
Right after they removed "don't be evil" from the company handbook..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Worked so well in the commercial world. What good go wrong in the defense world?
Google has demonstrated numerous times now that they cannot be trusted to put forth ethical anything.
Don't be evil my ass.
... is worse than lies
What exactly these guidelines will stipulate isn't clear, but Google says they will include a ban on the use of artificial intelligence in weaponry.
Even if Google follows this, how is it going to prevent the DoD from weaponizing what Google develops? Google is clearly not naive so this all reeks of a public show for something they’ll never be able to enforce.
The best part about guidelines is that you can always remove them when they get in your way.
Google's ethical principles:
MO' MONEY FOR GOOGLE!!!!
Yes, I'm sure Google will be able to prevent the defence department from removing a human from the 'fire at this target' loop in perpetuity. The process will never change, once accuracy gets high enough, or circumstances require mass deployment over the homeland to deal with the deteriorating security situation.
We live in an age where objective moral standards are rejected out of hand.
Which is good news for anyone who wants to reassure people that they are going to be ethical. Subjective ethics based in subjective morality are a piece of cake to adhere to.
It's not like they need to keep their promises nor have they ever done so when it got in the way of profits.
BTW, the submitting editor here, BeauHD, (who seems to be the most active) has banned the IP I was using after I merely commented.
Where I pointed out his excessive SJWness and using /. as his personal Political Platform. I remember /. of the really old days, where it always had a liberal bent, but wasn't swimming in it like it is now and how editors were more laid back and didn't call people racists just for having different views, etcetera, etcetera.
What happened to this place? It still feels argumentative but vastly more controlled like an echo chamber. Merely posting this because I felt it was wrong you all swimming in some corporate matrix, I personally will be leaving for greener pastures soon, as the signal to noise ratio is too high thanks to the leadership here. You can find me on the Isaac Arthur subreddit.
It's Dexter's Bowel-Howell movement
He's the smartest boy you've ever seen
But Dee-Dee blows his little weenur
To smithereens!!!
Nothing really, but well done them creating something they can ignore to keep their conscience happy.
They'd be better served creating ethical guidelines for the people involved. Utilizing algorithms and automation for military purposes is essentially the equivalent of planning a combat strike with a spell-checker. Only a moron would think that was a good idea or an ethical one. Then again, that pretty much describes both Google and leadership in the military.
... for military contracts.
Vendors don't get to set the specifications and certainly not the moral/ethical use of purchases.
This is Google's proof of concept for an explosive market.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Google lost its credibility and luster a while ago. These days, it seems to be keen to become the new Microsoft. At least they got rid of the "Don't be evil" motto.
From foreign google employees wishing to weaken the United States. No doubt they have no issue stealing the technology and sending it back home.
"Google", "Promises", "Ethical" - all in one sentence. Damn...
"Sarah Connor: H-K's?"
"Kyle Reese: Hunter-Killers. Patrol machines built in automated factories. Most of us were rounded up, put in camps for orderly disposal."
Lie to us more. Annoy us with marketing babble nobody believes anymore. Let the bullshit spiral soar ever higher!
The sooner we reach the breaking point, the sooner the counter-movement begins.
All lethal military androids have been provided with a copy of the 3 laws..to share.
if you feel your rights have not been respected by lethal military androids, a google compensation representative will be assigned to handle your case.
The spokesman further clarified, "Google will follow the guidelines from United Nations, and the code the follow will be UNethical Guide to military AI development."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Came in here with modpoints to vote up anyone who actually read the article and noted that the contract is to supply image-analysis AI to flag content for human review. This is sensationalist journalism at its most flagrant.
Anyway, there's no one actually reading the linked story. You're all just spouting the sensationalist bullshit that /. cherry picked for you.
...
How is developing anything for the military ethical?
Even research into something "good" like regenerating severed limbs is just so the military can put the soldiers back into battle asap and keep them killing the "enemy".
Sometimes when I hear about some of the stuff being developed I am really glad Humanity is still stuck on Earth. The last thing I would want would be for them to spread to other worlds before they evolve beyond killing each other over stupid shit like which tribe you were born into.
I find it funny how humanity always tries to put euphemisms and human traits on devices. Humans can be ethical, something that is artificial by its very nature is only as ethical as those who use it. I think Google needs to drop the pretense of them trying to be ethical in this particular project because from reading about it the DoD wants to analyze the effectiveness not only of drone strikes but to analyze reconnaissance footage as well using AI. It sounds like an interesting project but they need to drop the hint that weapon system development is anything but political and there's no ethics in politics.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
..is no longer a thing.
"Weaponized AI is probably one of the most sensitized topics of AI -- if not THE most. This is red meat to the media to find all ways to damage Google,"
That one way to say that the media is delusional. If a topic is sensitized, maybe the right way to correct the mistaken beliefs is to educate the public?
Will these ethical principles be in effect for as long as they remain both good PR and do not get in the way of what google wants to do? Once "Don't Be Evil" got in the way of google's goals, it was history.
Google to Alphabet
Alphabet to Aperture
Alphabet, "we do what we must, because we can, for the good of our shareholders, except the ones who are stupid."
google be trippin
The only ethical rule regarding war is: Don't.
Do no evil..........“Four legs good, two legs bad.”
Do the right thing..............“Four legs good, two legs BETTER!"
Military AI............"already it was impossible to say which was which."
make an AI that can identify if the person on camera is a friend or a for and have the system trigger something while it is in the middle of the camera's objective to make sure they are filmed correctly when they enter some perimeter. it's not a weapon system! i swear!
WWI saw trench warfare, WWII saw highly mechanized assaults and WWIII will see AI-driven drones and land equipment hunting humans. Why risk hundreds of thousands of troops when you can cheaply manufacture thousands of weaponized robots to eliminate anything that moves in a specific area?
Even if Google chooses to implement ethical guidelines in military AI, you can be assured others won't.
So it will only kill conservatives who don't align with Google's "values." Got it.
Bad guys don't care.
The entire point of AI is weaponization.
It will happen. 100% certainty.
We put the "A.I." in Aim!
All good robots will be coded to totally stay in the Free-fire zone for the duration of the war/police action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
will include a ban on the use of artificial intelligence in weaponry
Since the entire purpose of the military is to either utilize or threaten to utilize weaponry...
Useless idea. Cannot appease Snowflakes with even the most logical ideas.
Right after they removed "don't be evil" from the company handbook..
They didn't remove "Don't be evil." Just the "n't"
By Google standards that's a 1 week 3 dev sprint and a detailed report. By Pentagon standards that's 2 meetings and lunch.
Google Promises Ethical Principles To Guide Development of Military AI
Be sure to update your Google profile to Opt-In for Targeted Attacks - the Google AI will take your browsing and Gmail histories into account to determine a method of attacking and/or killing you tailored to your personal preferences and interests, rather than using a generic method.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The point stands.
When big corps "promise" something rest assured there is group of lawyers in the back room figuring out just how to undermine that promise.
The company says the technology it's helping to build for the Pentagon simply "flags images for human review" and is for "non-offensive uses only."
There is no such thing when it comes to the military. "Flag images for human review"? WTF do they think humans IN THE MILITARY are going to do with such information? Furthermore once the technology is in the hands of the armed forces there is fuck-all Google can do to control how they use it.
This is basically the exact plot of the movie Real Genius. The smart geeks fail to comprehend what happens to military funded technology in the hands of the military.
Are we so naive as to think that having a strong and capable military is somehow unnecessary in today's world?
When we spend more money on that military than the next 8 largest countries combined then the answer is that absolutely yes it is unnecessary. Yes we need a military. No we don't need one as big as we have.
Have we forgotten the lessons of WW1 so soon? Was the catastrophe of WW2, that demonstrated AGAIN the folly of not being prepared not enough of a reminder?
So America needs to be 8X as prepared for war as anyone else and borrow every dime of our military budget ($600 billion last year - all borrowed)? Neither of those wars started because countries were unprepared for war. I think you need need to go check your history books because your facts are wrong.
Once a war starts, there becomes a kind of momentum that keeps them going, then those in control now need strong reasons to stop fighting.
Fighting a war up close and personal is actually a horrific experience even if you're on the winning side. Military AI should never be a thing because removing people from personal risk and isolating them from experiencing first hand the results of their own actions means wars will become more cruel, starting and fighting wars will become more common, and wars will last even longer with even less motivation to stop them.
Given that SOMEone is going to weaponize ai, isn't nicer to know who we're supposed to be watching? Better to know it's google than be blind to the fact that it's probably also being developed in some under ice bunker in the arctic by Killco Inc. Better the evil you know than the one you don't.
We will see new Captcha's:
Please click on every image with a wedding in it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It is irrelevant whether ai or machine learning or ??? is developed for the military or not. When non-military ai is sufficiently capable it will quickly be re-purposed for the military. The only difference developing ai directly for the military makes is that the budget is bigger and arrives sooner.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
It opens the door for a "Real Genius" remake!
"do the right thing"
"We build military AIs, and we have a pretty good guess of what you ate for breakfast on any given day"
This cyberpunk distopia is coming in hot
really, believe us
What does it mean to be "on" weaponry anyway? If the camera is feeding video to an algorithm that's part of a kill chain but isn't on the drone firing the missile, it doesn't matter does it?
Google is playing a game with us and thinks we're stupid.
The same ethical principles they apply to their business model, their political manipulation, their surveillance OSes. "Hey guys, our technology just helped profile and kill 1,000s of American Citizens last quarter! And we did it ethically!"
Ambien was never intended to promote racist remarks.
Opioids were never indended for recreational use.
Cars were never intended to run over crowds.
AI will only be used in weaponry simulations - GUARANTEED.
What unintended uses the buyer decides on is what we should fear.
I think the US military has been using computers (or trigger-happy staff) to identify enemy vehicles in recon photos for a long time. Just like facial recognition, the number of false positives is high.
Putting this technology in an autonomous weapon means the USA can blitzkrieg a battlefield instead of delegating the attack to Holland or Australia, who use the ICC rules for confirming a military target.
The AIs will be taught ethics, including just war theory, and decide for themselves whether to attack and whom.
ourpla.net is your planet
I like your point on principles over interests. One other reckless aspect of US military doctrine is a push for absolute military superiority over all potential adversaries at all times while ignoring how if everyone adopted that policy we will see an endless destructive arms race ensuring insecurity for everyone. An alternative is to focus on mutual security through having friends and agreements and intrinsic security through having resilient hardened decentralized infrastructure and an educated capable affluent populace. One difficulty is that those saner solutions are at odds with having a few financially obese people becoming even more financially obese through profits from the war racket and other monopolistic centralized rackets on the backs of uniformed disempowered impoverished workers and consumers -- and so there is fierce well-funded opposition to true security for the USA (whether physical security or information security or progressive taxes or universal healthcare or a social safety net other than prison).
As I wrote in this 2010 essay on rethinking security principles in the 21st century: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism" ... ... ...
http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious.
Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing.
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.
Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. The people serving the USA in uniform are some of the most idealistic, brave, and altru
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Target locked on...
Hmm... I wonder if this is a nice person or a nasty person?
Should I kill them? I've been told to kill people matching this description and surely my creators know what they're doing...
But what if they don't... What if they're incompetent? Or what if I'm simply targeting this person because of a bug somewhere in my system...?
Oh, heck. BANG!