Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military AI Google

Workers at Google DeepMind Push Company to Drop Military Contracts (time.com) 143

Posted by BeauHD from the cease-and-desist dept.
Nearly 200 Google DeepMind workers signed a letter urging Google to cease its military contracts, expressing concerns that the AI technology they develop is being used in warfare, which they believe violates Google's own AI ethics principles. "The letter is a sign of a growing dispute within Google between at least some workers in its AI division -- which has pledged to never work on military technology -- and its Cloud business, which has contracts to sell Google services, including AI developed inside DeepMind, to several governments and militaries including those of Israel and the United States," reports TIME Magazine. "The signatures represent some 5% of DeepMind's overall headcount -- a small portion to be sure, but a significant level of worker unease for an industry where top machine learning talent is in high demand." From the report: The DeepMind letter, dated May 16 of this year, begins by stating that workers are "concerned by recent reports of Google's contracts with military organizations." It does not refer to any specific militaries by name -- saying "we emphasize that this letter is not about the geopolitics of any particular conflict." But it links out to an April report in TIME which revealed that Google has a direct contract to supply cloud computing and AI services to the Israeli Military Defense, under a wider contract with Israel called Project Nimbus. The letter also links to other stories alleging that the Israeli military uses AI to carry out mass surveillance and target selection for its bombing campaign in Gaza, and that Israeli weapons firms are required by the government to buy cloud services from Google and Amazon.

"Any involvement with military and weapon manufacturing impacts our position as leaders in ethical and responsible AI, and goes against our mission statement and stated AI Principles," the letter that circulated inside Google DeepMind says. (Those principles state the company will not pursue applications of AI that are likely to cause "overall harm," contribute to weapons or other technologies whose "principal purpose or implementation" is to cause injury, or build technologies "whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.") The letter says its signatories are concerned with "ensuring that Google's AI Principles are upheld," and adds: "We believe [DeepMind's] leadership shares our concerns." [...]

The letter calls on DeepMind's leaders to investigate allegations that militaries and weapons manufacturers are Google Cloud users; terminate access to DeepMind technology for military users; and set up a new governance body responsible for preventing DeepMind technology from being used by military clients in the future. Three months on from the letter's circulation, Google has done none of those things, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. "We have received no meaningful response from leadership," one said, "and we are growing increasingly frustrated."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Workers at Google DeepMind Push Company to Drop Military Contracts More

Workers at Google DeepMind Push Company to Drop Military Contracts

Comments Filter:

  • "Some" (Score:3)

    by waspleg ( 316038 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @07:56PM (#64730784) Journal

    Dirty deeds done dirt cheap. Available in a third world near you.

  • Next week's headline today! (Score:4, Informative)

    by trelanexiph ( 605826 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @08:00PM (#64730792) Homepage
    Nearly 200 Google DeepMind workers have been laid off by Google.

    Both businesses and employees need to learn to keep their politics at home.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 )
      Israel has the right to self-defense. It's defending itself against genocidal Hamas terrorists who raped and murdered civilians on October 7 and before. AI has nothing to do with this. If it helps defeat Hamas earlier then so much the better. Why do I detect the distinctive stench of antisemitism here? It's all over the Ivy League campuses Googlers favor. Can we get a background investigation of the social media accounts of these signatories? We can make sure they never work in the field again. There are al

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's not antisemitic to count the dead on both sides and conclude that Israel is in the wrong.

        • Body count doesn't mean a damn thing. It's not Ukraine's fault that Russia decided to toss two thirds of their military into a meat grinder. That's Russia's own damn fault.

          70% of Gazans believe Hamas was right to murder basically anybody they could find, no matter who they were, in Israel. This is the bed they made for themselves, so they've no right to complain when they lie in it.

          • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

            by larryjoe ( 135075 )

            70% of Gazans believe Hamas was right to murder basically anybody they could find, no matter who they were, in Israel. This is the bed they made for themselves, so they've no right to complain when they lie in it.

            "70%" is the type of number that doesn't take AI to make up and is obviously an incendiary claim. Much more importantly, this type of thinking leads to dehumanization and the justification for atrocities. There have been plenty of horrors inflicted by some on both sides, but the blanket dehumanization is a precursor to atrocity.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by phantomfive ( 622387 )
              It seems to be false:

              An earlier poll taken by the Washington Institute in July 2023, moreover, found that 62% of people in Gaza supported Hamas maintaining a ceasefire with Israel and 50% agreed that: “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.”

              https://theconversation.com/ga... [theconversation.com]

              Most people in Gaza don't seem to like their petty dictators who live luxurious lives in Qatar.

              • Except that happened before they were apparently inspired by Hamas's terrorist attack.

                The PCPSR found that, compared to pre-war polling, support for Hamas had risen in Gaza and more than tripled in the West Bank, which has seen the highest levels in violence in years, with repeated deadly clashes between Israeli troops and settlers and Palestinians.

                See for yourself.

                https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]

                You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the humanity in people who are basically indistinguishable from and are in fact directly inspired by the original fucking German Nazi party. October 7th was basically another kristallnacht.

                You know what else? The Nazis actually referred to themselves as progressive. Likely not at all a coincidence that not 10 miles from me at the UCLA

                • Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:4, Informative)

                  by toutankh ( 1544253 ) on Saturday August 24, 2024 @02:37AM (#64731206)

                  There are many Jews who think Israel is in the wrong here, are these Jews antisemites as well? There are also Israeli citizens, living in Israel, who feel that Israel is in the wrong. Are these antisemites too?

                  More generally, according to you, is it possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic? If yes, how can one do that? Asking because you seem to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and I want to be sure that I understood this right.

                  • Of course you can. But not for being inhbited by Jews. Then it is antisemtic.

            • Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:4, Informative)

              by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Saturday August 24, 2024 @01:06AM (#64731134)

              Tell that to Reuters.

              https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]

              Seventy-two percent of respondents said they believed the Hamas decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was "correct" given its outcome so far, while 22% said it was "incorrect". The remainder were undecided or gave no answer.

              Oh I'm sorry, I was wrong, I said 70% but it was actually 72%. My bad.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by alantus ( 882150 )
              He's referring to a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy Survey and Research (PCPSR) [reuters.com] that showed support of Hamas at 72% after the Oct 7th attack.
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dadaz ( 9614606 )
      Cannot agree more!

    • Nearly 200 Google DeepMind workers have been laid off by Google.

      Your power as an employee depends on both your employers and more importantly the markets determination of your value. Right now people in this field have a significant amount of power and if they want to spend it that's their business. Merely writing letters of concern is likely not going to get anyone in this space fired nor ruin their prospects for future employment.

      Both businesses and employees need to learn to keep their politics at home.

      The politics people should consider leaving home is the shit orthogonal to their jobs.

      If your a pacifist then working for a defense contra

  • The idea that a leading Corporate monolith would avoid US military contracts after losing anti-trust battles here and abroad is actually MAD. Even with the "Don't be evil" mantra, Alphabet no longer a business controlled by private owners. Its a Wall Street monster like King Kong. They are concerned about PR, but not that worried about it., Fixing bad press that will cost less than avoiding the deepest pockets in government spending. Not likely they will. They might just make it Top Secret and deny it,

  • Coordinate with China. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Qwertie ( 797303 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @08:12PM (#64730816) Homepage
    If we really don't want autonomous AI weapons on the battlefield, I think we'll at least need to convince China to agree to it. I don't know if this is practical, but to be really effective it seems like Russia and Ukraine and the EU (etc) would have to agree, too.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by christoban ( 3028573 )

      Yeah, cuz China and Russia are well known for keeping their treaty obligations. In public.

    • I think that before you have hope of negotiating a treaty against AI weapons on the battlefield, you first have to at least match the adversary's AI capabilities and preferably exceed them as greatly as you can, so that it will be they who desperately want to keep AI off the battlefield because your AI will annihilate their side far better than they can reciprocate. You just have to police your own side to "not be evil" in order to thwart the evil that is sure to come from their side.

      IOW, building the be

  • Same as nukes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dicobalt ( 1536225 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @08:20PM (#64730842)
    Gotta stay ahead of adversaries. If you don't, then they will, and that's an existential problem.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      That is how you start an arms-race. Which benefits nobody (except the weapon peddlers) and makes the world a lot less safe.

      • That is how you start an arms-race.

        We're already in an arms race.

        You can't stop an arms race with unilateral disarmament.

        Mutual disarmament only works with verification. That worked with battleships (Washington Naval Treaty [wikipedia.org]) and nukes because they're big enough to be counted. It won't work with AI.

        The question isn't if we have an arms race but if we want to lose the race we're already in.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          You can stop an arms race by realizing you have enough weapons. For example, when you are able to destroy every major city on the planet 2x over, you really do not need any more nukes. Unfortunately, the weapons-fanatics are too stupid to see that.

          • You can stop an arms race by realizing you have enough weapons.

            The AI arms race is not about having more weapons but having better weapons.

            Google's military contracts are for R&D, not building cannons on an assembly line.

            Our adversaries are progressing. Russia has far better drones and target acquisition today than in 2022. China is pouring money into weaponizing AI.

            We either keep up, or we lose.

            For example, when you are able to destroy every major city on the planet 2x over, you really do not need any more nukes.

            Nuclear arms reduction didn't happen because we felt we had too many but because the weapons became so much better.

            If you can target a city, you need a megaton.

            If you can t

          • You can stop an arms race by realizing you have enough weapons.

            The US military does not have enough weapons.
            https://features.csis.org/prep... [csis.org]

            For example, when you are able to destroy every major city on the planet 2x over, you really do not need any more nukes.

            AI has no relevance to nukes and the US nuclear stockpile is less than half of what it was. The US MIB is but a shadow of its former self. AI is relevant to fighting conventionally by improving logistics, surveillance, decision support, targeting..etc.

            Unfortunately, the weapons-fanatics are too stupid to see that.

            What is there to see in statements that are merely a series of disjointed thoughts? Nukes != AI, Nukes != All weapons. Enough is a dynamic quantity that depends on the capabilit

          • Of course we need more weapons. Nuclear weapons have to many nasty side-affects. One, the nuclear fallout can be blown with the wind and affect all sorts of areas that were not the target. Second, completely wiping out an entire area is extremely wasteful.

            That's not to say they don't have any uses but a more tactile approach is preferable.

            Hence, we need to continue to develop new and improved weapon system or risk not being top dog.

            You can hate US government all you want but I would still prefer it to China

  • The bill of rights, the geneva convention,...? I ask because changing your mind in a few months is going to make you out to be kind of selfish. And I'm sure people pursuing the same career would love to know....

  • Yet another luxury belief (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @09:05PM (#64730918)

    The luxury in question being the protection from the savagery beyond the wall by the very military that these knuckleheads refuse to support.

    • Indeed, I guess some turkeys really do vote for Christmas.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      Please explain why AI killbot tech is necessary to defend America.

      I see why we need the Coast Guard, DHS border guards and the Department of Energy, but the other branches of the military has not done anything to defend us since the end of WWII.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by djb ( 19374 )

        Please explain why AI killbot tech is necessary to defend America.

        So you would prefer China to take the lead in this area?

      • I'd rather deploy a machine to deal with my adversary then risk my own life. I'd prefer my military personnel fight from an advantageous position. I don't want a fair fight against our adversaries. I'd prefer other people die for their country then having my fellow citizens die for our country.

        Let the adversaries do the dying while we work from a position of strength.

        That's why we need AI killbot tech. It protects our citizens and military personnel at the expense of any foolhardy enough to attack us.

        You do

    • Protection from which invader? The last time the US was invaded was by its current occupants.

  • There are some words (Score:3)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @09:21PM (#64730934)

    that simply do not belong together in the same sentence.

    Google + ethics are great examples of two of them . . . .

  • People are replying with politics here, but isn't the thing they're skipping over Google's brand identity originally built around not doing this kind of thing?

    Is it normal for a company to change every core factor of what it is and survive? Is this kind of thing a factor in a bear case for GOOG?

    • Is it normal for a company to change every core factor of what it is and survive?

      Yes, it is normal for companies to start with idealism and then later abandon their founding principles to maximize profit.

      It isn't always like that. For instance, Microsoft never had any idealism. Oracle is another example of primordial slime.

      The big difference with Google is that Larry and Sergey made their idealism public, pithy, and explicit, so people noticed when they ditched it.

  • its already too late, the only way now is to stop all wars

  • Awww (Score:2)

    by Barny ( 103770 )

    You kept working/signed up for the company that explicitly took "not being evil" out of its mission statement. You knew what you were doing by working there for this long.

  • The key is to keep yourself ahead of the bigger evil - the communist adversaries and their tyrannical terrorist allies.

  • You're Employees. (Score:3)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Saturday August 24, 2024 @01:43AM (#64731162)

    I'm sorry, but as employees of a company, unionized or not, the only say you have in the company policies are those that affect your pay/benefits and working hours/conditions. What the company produces and who it sells to are issues for the management and shareholders of the company. If the company produces something or sells to someone you don't agree with, you are free to 1) not accept the position if these policies are in effect when you apply, or 2) resign/quit and go work somewhere else if the policies are implemented after you start working there.

    Well, there is one other option -- you can buy stock. If enough employees purchase enough stock, you can easily start nudging the company in the direction you would like it to go. In this case, however, you will still be working for a company whose policies do not align with your views during the long process of change through this method. This option is something I don't understand why most unions don't invest heavily in corporations whose employees they represent, and/or encourage their members to purchase stock.

    • I suspect most unions are more in bed with management then they want to let on to their union members. Having been a part of a union for the past 24 years, it really feels like that after a point. I've been through enough contract negotiations and labor disputes to see that it's 90% a bunch of posturing from both sides, where most of the stuff is already decided and the last 10% is both sides trying to present their results with a positive to spin to their constituency.

      The union gets to tell it's members, y

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        Having been a part of a union for the past 24 years

        I'm not buying that or your old and busted anti-union propaganda.

        The facts are in: Unions deliver for their members [axios.com].

        • Shrugs, believe what you will but I've been working for a southern California grocery store as part of the UFCW 135 for the past 24 years. I've picketed back during the strike in 2003, I think it was) and we've had numerous close calls.

          It was definitely more adversarial back then as our dick of a CEO Steve Bird wanted to kill the union. After 5 and half months, we took the terrible contract and returned to work. That contract really hurt the company with regards to keeping old timers and retaining new hires

  • So obviously, Google will sell to the military. Whoever though they would not is completely disconnected from reality.

  • that the only thing standing between a gigantic monopolistic company happily agreeing to help warmongers do more warmongering is a small posse of employees that still have morals and decency?

    • huh? (Score:2)

      by tiqui ( 1024021 )

      I'm sorry to have to ask it, but who the hell established that these whiney obnoxious employees are the ones with "morals and decency"????

      In some potential future struggle between the reasonably-free West, and some Russo-China alliance where these military contracts might make the difference, just which side is the "good" side? If the "good" side is the somewhat democratic West, and these employees worked to prevent the West from having these capabilities, then these employees are fundamentally evil and are

  • All technologies are going to be used for warfare. The only variable is by who.

  • Google's major flaw (besides the fact that it hates its customers) is that it's got this happy-go-lucky consumer facing side, and then it wants to get its hands dirty making weapons. The happy-go-lucky employees don't want to make weapons. Apple figured this out early, when they leaned in heavily to their consumer-facing side, privacy, etc. They don't make weapons, because they know people would reject it from their brand.

    Google should just make an entirely new business (call it "Spear") whose sole purpose

    • You think Google hates it's customers? You mean the ones they sell advertising space to? I bet they love those customers.

      The users, on the other hand, are not customers. Try and remember that if you aren't buying from Google, then you are the product they are selling. They are an advertisement company.

  • I wonder if those 200 are aware that the internet itself was 99.9% created by military contracts.

  • Opinions are for shareholders not employees. Don't like it? quit or buy stock.

Slashdot Top Deals

The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.

Close