Google Staff Resign In Backlash Over Its AI Contracts With Military (bbc.com) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Google is facing a backlash from some staff members over the company's deployment of its AI technology for military use. The BBC has spoken to several tech workers who have either recently resigned from Google's AI company, Google DeepMind, or are in the process of leaving, over concerns with the tech firm's military contracts. Sofia Liguori, a London-based research engineer, is one of them. She resigned from Google DeepMind this week and spoke about her concerns exclusively with the BBC, despite her contract restricting her from doing so.
"Realizing my company is pushing more and more for AI systems in military operations makes me feel ashamed to work at Google," Liguori said, speaking in a personal capacity. [...] After working for the company for three years, Liguori said she decided to resign over Google's increasing work with the US and Israeli militaries. "I don't agree with this direction and this has led me to lose faith in my company being true to its stated ethical values," she said. Those values, according to Google's AI Principles, include implementing AI with "human oversight" and aligning the technology with "international law and human rights." But former and current staff at the company, and experts the BBC spoke to, said they were concerned about the level of human oversight at critical moments.
The tech workers said they are particularly worried about the AI military deals signed this year, because they greatly increase the scope of what the Pentagon can use the technology for. Andreas Kirsch, an AI researcher, also resigned from Google DeepMind earlier this month over his concerns. Kirsch told the BBC that he believes "Google's governance and oversight are not sufficient or meaningful enough to deploy AI safely and responsibly in military and classified settings" or "to develop artificial superintelligence safely in the future." "Google seems to have no right to control or veto how the Pentagon uses its AI and also seems to have limited visibility into how it's being deployed," he added.
[...] Employees at Google have told the BBC that staff are scared to speak out about AI safety and its uses in warfare because their employment contracts prohibit them from publicly criticizing the company. "In principle I'm not allowed to criticize Google for the duration of my life," Sofia Liguori told the BBC. But she decided to do so "because I believe it's important for these things to be known and I also think that talking about facts is not criticizing." Liguori added that at Google "people are scared of retaliation and putting their career at risk. You feel you are being watched, you can't speak."
A current employee at Google DeepMind, who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, told the BBC that "a lot of motivated employees who signed up for [the company's] original mission could leave -- but there's also a pipeline of people at the start of the careers who could fill those positions. It could be a changing of the guard." Another Google DeepMind staff member, who also wished to remain anonymous, told the BBC: "A lot of people have left the company that feel strongly about this [how Google DeepMind has changed its ethics position]." "Some people are putting up a fight, others are thinking: 'it's a big company. What do you expect to change?'", the employee said. In response, a Google spokesperson told the BBC: "We work with public sector organisations worldwide and follow a consistent process for reviewing and entering these contracts, including compliance with our acceptable use policies and AI principles."
"We also have dedicated channels for employees to safely raise any concerns -- ranging from business ethics to misconduct -- and have strict workplace policies in place to prevent retaliation of any kind."
"Realizing my company is pushing more and more for AI systems in military operations makes me feel ashamed to work at Google," Liguori said, speaking in a personal capacity. [...] After working for the company for three years, Liguori said she decided to resign over Google's increasing work with the US and Israeli militaries. "I don't agree with this direction and this has led me to lose faith in my company being true to its stated ethical values," she said. Those values, according to Google's AI Principles, include implementing AI with "human oversight" and aligning the technology with "international law and human rights." But former and current staff at the company, and experts the BBC spoke to, said they were concerned about the level of human oversight at critical moments.
The tech workers said they are particularly worried about the AI military deals signed this year, because they greatly increase the scope of what the Pentagon can use the technology for. Andreas Kirsch, an AI researcher, also resigned from Google DeepMind earlier this month over his concerns. Kirsch told the BBC that he believes "Google's governance and oversight are not sufficient or meaningful enough to deploy AI safely and responsibly in military and classified settings" or "to develop artificial superintelligence safely in the future." "Google seems to have no right to control or veto how the Pentagon uses its AI and also seems to have limited visibility into how it's being deployed," he added.
[...] Employees at Google have told the BBC that staff are scared to speak out about AI safety and its uses in warfare because their employment contracts prohibit them from publicly criticizing the company. "In principle I'm not allowed to criticize Google for the duration of my life," Sofia Liguori told the BBC. But she decided to do so "because I believe it's important for these things to be known and I also think that talking about facts is not criticizing." Liguori added that at Google "people are scared of retaliation and putting their career at risk. You feel you are being watched, you can't speak."
A current employee at Google DeepMind, who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, told the BBC that "a lot of motivated employees who signed up for [the company's] original mission could leave -- but there's also a pipeline of people at the start of the careers who could fill those positions. It could be a changing of the guard." Another Google DeepMind staff member, who also wished to remain anonymous, told the BBC: "A lot of people have left the company that feel strongly about this [how Google DeepMind has changed its ethics position]." "Some people are putting up a fight, others are thinking: 'it's a big company. What do you expect to change?'", the employee said. In response, a Google spokesperson told the BBC: "We work with public sector organisations worldwide and follow a consistent process for reviewing and entering these contracts, including compliance with our acceptable use policies and AI principles."
"We also have dedicated channels for employees to safely raise any concerns -- ranging from business ethics to misconduct -- and have strict workplace policies in place to prevent retaliation of any kind."
When the people who care about "good" leave... (Score:2, Interesting)
Who did you think you were building this ridiculously expensive, generally unneeded thing that no one will actually pay the true cost of for? It has military written all over it.
I'm quoting your FP because that moderation appears to be intended as censorship. For what extremely little it is worth on today's Slashdot, I think you are raising an interesting point, probably even an important point, but not doing it well. Positive spin would be to say you felt constrained by the FP problem and wrote in haste. Negative spin would question how well you write. Today I feel positive, except that I believe the FP thing is on the LONG list of problems Slashdot cannot address because of the d
Re: (Score:2)
Too late to go for funny, but I didn't leave any ribbon. Maybe that explains your Canadian rudeness?
Re:idealists (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:idealists (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like modders are modding down any post to this article that supports the military in any way.
I realize that we hate violence and that humanity's history is rich with horrifying crimes against humanity all committed by militaries.
That doesn't change the fact that we need them. A country without a military gets steamrolled, and that's that. There is no present or future world in which militaries are unnecessary. That's just practical necessity talking. We can lament this fact all day long, but, we will never escape the need for military protection. This makes militaries a "necessary evil."
That also means that the military must be effective. A military with low-tech second-rate weapons can't protect anyone. I didn't create this world, I am just describing it, don't shoot the messenger.
The article summary laments the fact that Google can't control how the U.S. military uses its AI products. Well, ok, that means AI might get used for evil. But what are we actually proposing here? That a private business with international ties should be able to tell the military what it can and can't do? That isn't how any sane chain of command works. We DO need transparency and accountability in the military, but they should be accountable to voters and elected representatives, not to the wealthy CEOs of powerful international businesses.
This is a case of idealism being too extreme. A world where militaries couldn't do evil things would be a better world than the one we have. But we won't succeed in creating such a world by keeping military technology under the control of the private sector. That just doesn't make any sense.
Our country's enemies have AI available to their militaries as well. They can use it to deploy cyber attacks on a scale never before seen. We need detection and response that is equally rapid. For that, we need our own AI. It makes zero sense for us to fall behind in an arms race, and even less sense for us to give our military leaders even more bosses to answer to (thus eliminating the possibility of speedy and decisive action in a crisis).
Before modding me down, please at least try to think this through. This isn't about feeling big and powerful or enabling evil, it's about ensuring effectiveness in keeping us safe.
Re:idealists (Score:5, Informative)
This is something I see a lot; people who are intelligent but not really aware of how the world works, but also completely unaware of their own lack of understanding.
The facts of the world are:
1) The US military's enormous strength has kept the world relatively peaceful for 70 years. Yes there have been wars and other conflicts; you can't solve every problem. But compared to the World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco Prussian Wars, the Seven Years' War (which some define as the first real World War), and the Thirty Years' War, the back half of the 20th century by comparison was relatively quiet. That's because the US gave the world a choice: trade with us and prosper, or challenge us and be destroyed. You can do that with a powerful military, and occasionally it has to be used, but we haven't seen a conflict even remotely on the scale of the major World Wars until Ukraine. There are issues and problems, but the US' military strength made going Total War again far too costly, when it was just cheaper and better all around to trade. So as much as they are taking a stand on morals, the reality is that the very strength of the US military historically has suppressed conflict.
2) That doesn't mean people won't try to push, again as we've seen in Ukraine. Almost all forms of conflict became asymmetrical; deadly, and it makes headlines, but for the most part asymmetrical warfare could not existentially threaten a nation. But, again as we've seen in Ukraine and now Iran, there are limits to the US military's strength, which built a system of high efficient, high cost systems for global power projection, but are significantly challenged by middling efficient, ultra cheap systems in large numbers. And while you may not want the US military to have AI tools, all you're doing is hobbling the one military who's very power ensured an era of relative peace and prosperity will be unprepared when potential adversaries are empowered with those tools. And quitting Google will not stop Iran or China or Russia or anyone else from developing AI weapons.
Given that the US military's very strength kept the world relatively peaceful when looking at the long view of human history, the moral argument against supporting the DoD falls apart pretty quickly. I could understand not wanting to support the current administration which is absolutely a warmonger, but that changes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Given that the US military's very strength kept the world relatively peaceful
That was true from 1945 through 2024. But in case you missed it, that old world order has been destroyed by the current US administration and it may never return. It's not simply a matter of the current administration being "warmongering". It's actively attacking the rules-based order that had kept the world relatively stable and peaceful for about 80 years. The future looks very uncertain and quite scary to me.
Re: idealists (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, your point is entirely valid.
Re: idealists (Score:2)
George Washington was a genocidal murderer who embraced fascism by founding the standing militia the 2a was written to eliminate the need for.
Re: idealists (Score:3)
Re:idealists (Score:4)
But honest truth: it isn't Trump. Trump is just the symptom of a broader movement; he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected if there wasn't a broader movement happening. The reality is that the Baby Boomer and Gen X'rs who were in charge during the 80s, 90s, and early 2000's, whether they were Neo-Con Republicans or the newer Democrats, were globalists. They built a system that built wealth, security and prosperity for them, but missed two key aspects: they locked the door behind them for the next generation to participate in that wealth, and they used the middle class's wealth to fund that security. As a result, the middle class and upcoming generations got fed up, lost faith in both parties, and elected an outsider. About 1/3rd of my relatives are Trump supporters; they all despise him personally, but their vote for him was a vote against all others; frankly many of them would have elected a Golden Retriever as long as he wasn't part of the insider political class, but Trump was what they got. The globalists of the world built a globalized world, but didn't manage their base well and the base revolted when they perceived they weren't being taken care of, and as a result we're seeing a crisis of confidence in government leading to the election of "anything but them".
I say that because Trump is not a US-only phenomenon. Nationalism is growing all around the world right now. France is having major riots that started with youth and spun way out of control, and following the polls, Marie le Pen is the most likely next Prime Minister of France. She is a French female Trump, and has said Day 1 if she gets the top job she will stop all funding and support to Ukraine and drop sanctions on Russia. Germany is seeing another revival of nationalism, so is Italy, the UK, Hungary, Brazil, India, Turkey; all are reviving nationalism. Heck even China is using nationalism to shore up domestic support of the government, and you're even seeing growing nationalism in Canada of all places. This is a global phenomenon; Trump is just the US' version of it.
The US military is still strong. Nationalist tendencies grew in the Philippines about a decade ago, leading to the removal of US troop presence; now they're asking for it back because of Chinese belligerence. The US military is still the most capable fighting force on the planet and in history, but it's strength is being tested by autonomous systems which allow countries to dominate their own local region way above their ability previously and for quite cheap. To maintain it's role as the strong stabilizer, the US Military does need to retool, and quickly (and it is, I have many old and current contacts in the DoD and there are some fascinating projects going on) to counter this rapid growth in technology, which goes back to my point: it's foolish of these people to quit Google in protest over supporting the US military right when the US military needs new tools to project strength and actually promote peace.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean people won't try to push, again as we've seen in Ukraine. Almost all forms of conflict became asymmetrical; deadly, and it makes headlines, but for the most part asymmetrical warfare could not existentially threaten a nation.
in the 1990s during the breakup of the Soviet Union, the United States convinced Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons with the promise that the USA would defend them if they were invaded.
Re: idealists (Score:2)
Peace through power is hardly a new concept. Romans already had Pax Romana, which funnily enough coincided with some of their greatest territorial expansions. British, Spanish, Han, etc. all argued the same thing. Hardly stopped them from abusing that authority to the detriment of smaller, poorer countries.
The U.S. is doing the same thing here as all the other great powers in history and now has reached the point where it is horribly abusing it to the detriment of the world. Our war against Iran, of which T
Re: (Score:1)
Except Iran started the war in 1979 and past Presidents have just been kicking the can down the road. If the intel is to be believed, they were about to cross the nuclear threshold after which they would not have hesitated to leverage it to torment the rest of the world. At some point, we either had to try to put an end to what they started, or live with their constant threats against the West and all other religions backed with nuclear weapons.
Re: idealists (Score:2)
Lmao Israelis basically have nukes thanks to the U.S. and have been leveraging all sorts of underhanded tactics to get the world to back their colonialist project against the Palestinians. Shoot, we already have US politicians like Mike Huckabee quoting the Bible to justify our ME policies. Russians, Chinese, and Iranians wish they could have even a tenth of the leverage the Israelis have over us.
I really cannot see the Iranians being any worse. The IRI is a repressive theocracy but that describes half of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: idealists (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A country with a military only goes around thinking up reasons to use its military against others.
Re:idealists (Score:4, Insightful)
Tibet pursued a policy of peaceful isolationism influenced by Buddhist pacifism. In 1950, they got curb stomped by the PLA, conquered and the Dalai Lama sent into exile.
In 416 BC, the Island/City state of Melos chose neutrality during the Peloponnesian War. Athens (the Democracy I should add, not the authoritarian Spartans), demanded they submit and become a vassal state to the growing Athenian sphere of influence. THey refused, Athens invaded, killed every man, enslaved all the women and children, and repopulated the city with Athenian citizens. This was famously summed up in the Melian Dialogue by Thucydides, the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must [wikipedia.org].
Denmark signaled to Nazi Germany they intended to stay neutral and built a small army, to show they were no threat, and signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in 1939. In 1940, Germany broke the pact, invaded, conquered the country in 6 hours.
There are many others all throughout history. The only examples of entities surviving without a strong military are countries like Costa Rica and Mexico, which they could do because they fell inside the security umbrella of the United States, who was adamant that the Western Hemisphere would be peaceful, or else. Other small countries like Lichtenstein or Iceland did it through alliances, like Iceland joining NATO with a special caveat that they would build no military, but all NATO could use it's ports and airfields as bases.
Greater men than us today, who experienced enormous hardships, understood this. Si vis pacem, para bellum [wikipedia.org] has been proven true time and again in history.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a vicious cycle of where investing in weapons only rationalizes the use of those weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Which fate would you prefer:
1. living in a country that invests in weapons for its military, and must therefore contend with the political issues that arise around use of those weapons.
or
2. living in a country that does not invest in weapons and so becomes an attractive target to other countries that DO invest in weapons, and gets conquered by them (which winds up returning you to fate 1 anyway, assuming you survive the conquest in which you are significantly outgunned).
Re: (Score:2)
This makes militaries a "necessary evil."
I think you make a good, albeit uncomfortable point.
If we accept that point - that a military is a necessity, and that it must not simply exist, but be effective - then we have to support the building and upkeep of such a military. But I still think there is a bit of leeway for the attitude in which we do that.
We can have an Eisenhower-like attitude, which I think achieves what you say, but in a sort of measured manner, alway cautious. Or we can do it in a bellicose, gung-ho sort of manner. Both might achie
Re: (Score:2)
And how many times has the us military had to 'defend' itself?
Once in Hawaii, but that was only because said military existed.
The rest is adventurism.
Re: (Score:2)
Opening up positions for vets who went to school (Score:1)
They are quitting during a time when it's extremely hard to find jobs in IT..
Good, they are opening up positions for vets who went to school on the GI Bill.
Admirable (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it admirable that these few are standing their moral ground even if it is only a tempest in a tea pot.
I find it enviable to have made so much that they are able to abandon their employment for a lost cause based solely on personal morals. Most people aren't in such a position. Obviously Google pays well. Or it used to, for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, an employment contract that has a non-disclosure clause in it is only valid for its duration. Someone who has left the employ is no longer party to that contract, nor has to abide by any clauses of it. Google can't impose a "you don't talk about Fight Club" clause in perpetuity, no matter how much it might like to.
Re:Admirable (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that and it might be accurate. But, can you survive defending against the lawsuit that they bring? Can you afford legal defense against the likes of Google for 5 or more years?
Ain't nobody in their right mind talking about stuff that is covered by a NDA just because they quit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ain't nobody in their right mind talking about stuff that is covered by a NDA just because they quit.
Except maybe someone who quits a job at Google because the US Military somehow benefits. They've already demonstrated quite questionable judgement. There might be some rare rational genuine pacifists among the group, but I suspect most are merely hyper political so their judgement would be a bit iffy.
Re: (Score:1)
Alleged breaches of employment contract are dealt with by tribunal, not a court, so it doesn't matter if a hundred lawyers turn up with 2000 boxes of documents from the company in an attempt to bankrupt via anticipated awarded costs.
We do things a bit different in UK than US when it comes to employment.
Re:Admirable (Score:4, Informative)
Also, an employment contract that has a non-disclosure clause in it is only valid for its duration.
That is an overstatement. Anything "trade secret" or otherwise intellectual property based may not be disclosed.
It also depends on the contract. For example a severance package may include restrictions on what you can say about internal things beyond trade secrets and other intellectual property. Accepting the severance package being the consideration that makes it legal.
Re: (Score:1)
Things that are commercial in confidence of course remain so or infrastructure detail beyond "yeah, we used Microsoft Exchange". Who a company has done business with is not, however. Or things like "team dynamic" which is a popular interview question.
Re: (Score:2)
Interview 'team dynamic' is a trick question. Shit on past employer, they'll expect you to do the same to them. Answering with something like 'I'd be happy to discuss different team dynamics and hazards in hypothetical contexts, but I am not comfortable with discussing internal dynamics of specific previous employers.'
Re: (Score:2)
Many employment agreements have an NDA that survives for a certain period after employment has ended. But that typically covers trade secrets, customer lists, financial data, etc. I doubt anyone can stop you from talking about your subjective experience at a place of employment.
Re: (Score:1)
There's also "non-compete" clauses which aren't actually enforceable. You can't tell someone who works at a travel agency they can't quit and go work at a rival travel agency except after n months, for example.
Re: Admirable (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Times have changed (Score:4, Interesting)
But now I look at our enemies, Russia and Iran in particular, and I would welcome the chance to help change those regimes.
Imagine how much better things would be for many, many people, with Putin and the Islamists gone.
Do your bit for a better world.
Re: Times have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Times have changed (Score:2)
Re: Times have changed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor under real capitalism.
I don't know how much more real capital controlling the means of production can get, but I sure fucking hope it isn't much more real than this.
Re: Times have changed (Score:4, Interesting)
IF you want to talk about capitalism from a scientific/academic standpoint, you should use well-defined terms, like "Free markets" or "private investment."
Re: Times have changed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Times have changed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Times have changed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not some random jerk who can't be bothered to remember we do that every 4-8 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Please, you couldn't locate Iran if I handed you a blank map. You also didn't give one fuck about Iran until dear leader started antagonizing them. How many times have we declared the strait open again? https://hormuz.now/ [hormuz.now]
Re:Times have changed (Score:4, Informative)
Iran has been evil as hell for a long time.
The Islamists took over by working with liberal protesters, who they immediately turned around and shot. Keep that in mind when you see Palestinians (AKA, Iranian proxies) at protests.
Re: (Score:2)
Not MLK Jr's idea of a protest (Score:2)
Re: Not MLK Jr's idea of a protest (Score:2)
He was warming up to more direct action when they assassinated him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should pay attention to the fact that they only assassinated him after he met with Malcolm and his views began to change.
Re: (Score:2)
Other estimates say more oil is flowing through the strait now than before the war [wsj.com]. Of course, that isn't the same as the strait being open, but for most of us, it's what we care about. Ships filled with iPhone shipments to Kuwait don't affect us much [reuters.com].
Re: (Score:1)
You utter fool. Don't assume everyone else is ignorant of the world just because you are.
Sometimes you can tell someone is ignorant from their content. Sometimes, it's because they checked the box that is labeled "Post Anonymously"
Re: Times have changed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Putin and the Islamists" was the name of my high school band.
Re: (Score:2)
"Putin and the Islamists" was the name of my high school band.
Didn't you open for "Red Green Alliance"?
Re: (Score:1)
As we look at history (Score:2)
Every invention ever made has been used in war.
This is sad and depressing, and clearly points out the biggest problem with human society.
I wish we could kick the habit and get over our addiction to war, but this appears to be a fantasy.
And yes, in the past I have worked on jobs for the military.
It's complex.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: As we look at history (Score:1)
Evolution shows how those defenses also make great mating displays, once the animal figures out it's better to make love than war
Give me a fsckin break (Score:2)
'"Google seems to have no right to control or veto how the Pentagon uses its AI and also seems to have limited visibility into how it's being deployed," he added.'
Duh. You don't have the right to control any users let alone the military controlled and directed by our democratically elected representatives. In order to protect national interests they have the power to seize your tech and disregard your patents. You certainly aren't going to prevent the other side of this arms race from destroying us.
Nuclear
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google is selling AI as a service so it could easily set demands and requirements. Anthropic had the balls to say no to the military and it angered the dementia patient and the drunkard https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Anthropic had the balls to say no to the military and it angered the dementia patient and the drunkard
Biden and Harris? Or Biden and Pelosi?
Re: (Score:2)
Or the government can claim they need Google's gear for national security and seize their datacenter and model, paying what the government decides is fair value for it. It's hilarious that you antifa anarchists talk about how you don't want corporate rule unless you don't like the government and then you think mega corps like anthropic should call the shots instead of government! That's the difference between ya'll and actual liberals who think individuals should have the rights.
"Anthropic had the balls to
Re: Give me a fsckin break (Score:2)
Models don't do things deliberately, nutso.
Re: (Score:2)
"Models don't do things deliberately"
Tell me you don't understand this technology without telling me you don't understand this technology. Models follow the patterns trained into them and harness/system prompt instructions and those elements *are* deliberate. Just because the agency didn't come from the tool doesn't mean it isn't the outcome of agency or obstructive.
Re: (Score:2)
So long, good luck (Score:2)
...don't let the door hit you on the way out.
These people are very likely talented enough that they will land other jobs immediately. It is no hardship on them to quit. They are sacrificing nothing, but they stood up for their principles -sort of.
The reality they will find is that any other employer that can afford to pay them as well as Google for work in their field of expertise will also have contracts with the US military. Perhaps they could take a significant pay cut and work for smaller, private co
Must be nice to be so entitled+10% actually fight! (Score:2)
Finally, what are they using AI for? I'll wager it's just for mundane, boring shit. It's not designing super bombs to
Re: (Score:1)
This is just dumb on so many levels. EVEN IF the DoD could somehow figure out how to divert like 2% of it's budget to support this, that's what, at most 2 Billion dollars a year? That doesn't make a dent in 2 Trillion.
The reality? Anthropic ISN'T going to be building 2T worth of data centers and if it tries it'll bankrupt itself in short order. You CAN bet it's going to TALK ABOUT building them to keep this bubble inflated as long as it can though.
Separation of authority (Score:2)
Tonight's Homework: Watch "The Forbin Project" (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Missing Some Context Here in the Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
I think some folks are overlooking the fact that the public is getting increasingly sick and tired of the U.S. getting involved in so many wars since, well our inception as a country. The moralizing angle does not work for a public staring down the barrel of increased cost of living while the admin keeps going around bombing people and hawking the increasingly absurd propaganda to justify it.
We come off a two decade venture in the ME that was waged for very dubious objectives, costed us a ton of money, was used to justify the passage of increasingly invasive domestic surveillance policies wrt the Patriot act, and really did not actually improve the wellbeing of the average American just to get immersed in more wars.
Now I can at least give a pardon for Ukraine, but Iâ(TM)m laughing at the notion that we are waging a war with Iran for what totally is not on behalf of a certain little country looking to off a regional rival while we in return get to consolidate control over a major naval trade route for energy and chemical products. Why should Americans care about what an authoritarian regime does to its own people given we have supported our share of bloodthirsty regimes wrt to the Saudis, Israelis, and the rest of the GCC, or our history in LatAM.
So yeah, I get it. There is no honor in serving an army where the leadership is full of deranged crooks who would have no qualms tossing you aside when you have outlived your usefulness for whatever questionable geopolitical scheme they are trying to accomplish. Back then they could justify it by making the public richer but so far it seems like the spoils of war go to a handful of interests while we bear more of the cost at home.
Re: Missing Some Context Here in the Comments (Score:2)
Why should Americans care about what an authoritarian regime does to its own people given we have supported our share of bloodthirsty regimes wrt to the Saudis, Israelis, and the rest of the GCC, or our history in LatAM.
The U.S. is not so much concerned about what Iran does to its own people, although the outright slaughter of tens of thousands of Protesters should upset most people, no, the pretense of the war with Iran involves things like their development of cruise missiles that can hit the capitols of England, France, and Germany, as well as their obvious attempts to develop a nuclear bomb program.
Agree or disagree with the stated goal, but at least be accurate in your description of the motivation.
Re: Missing Some Context Here in the Comments (Score:2)
Re: Missing Some Context Here in the Comments (Score:2)
The nuke issue goes both ways. For the Iranians, they see the U.S. rolling over other dictatorships that gave up their nuclear weapons programs via proxies if not outright invasions, as seen with Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. Meanwhile NK, a glorified pariah state has achieved nuclear power status and the U.S. has thus declined to retaliate despite the provocations of the Kim family. For the IRI, the nukes are an insurance policy to protect them from the U.S. and the Israelis.
For the U.S., we have hated the Iran
Did Google a favor (Score:1)
They quite literally did Google a favor by resigning. I wish such people wrote on their Resumes something like:
"I'm a virtue signaling individual. I really care about how I'm perceived by my other, virtue signaling friends!".
This way I can easily skip them when I hire people.
Insightful use of protest as self-promotion (Score:2)
Not jumping ship until a politically fashionable trigger event offers itself is a fine way to profit from a system to which one expediently objects. That's an admirably shrewd career move, not rage against anyones machine.
Bailing out "in protest" when you're making phat bank to go make even phatter bank is great self-promotion with no downside. Seriously capable people don't stay unemployed long. The departing will be easily replaced which reinforces corporate policies they object to. No one loses anything
Well, I guess it saves Google... (Score:2)
Hypocrites (Score:2)
Why did they take the job in the first place? This isn't new behavior.
Let them quit. (Score:2)
If employees of a company disagree with how the company is managing itself, disagree with how the company solicits its customers, they have several options. One time-honored possibility is to form a union. Another is to get yourself into a position of influence, such as an important position or even get yourself elected to the Board of Trustees. They may vary in level of difficulty, but they are possible. Another way is to quit in protest. There is no reason for an employee to continue working for a company
No funny here (Score:2)
Just sadness
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I propose a military grade AI-run robot check YOU out, for pre-crime.
And I assume, from your post, that you masturbated to read about the 167 girls going to school in Iran who were murdered due to AI intel.
Re: Boo Hoo... (Score:2)
It's interesting you mention Iran given they're the ones keeping Hamas and Hezbollah in power, and they in-turn are repeatedly the aggressors that put Lebanon and Gaza at war with Israel, which you guys then blame squarely on Israel, for reasons that I can only conclude relate to antisemitism given no other explanation makes any rational sense, and -- let's face it -- some of you are openly doing that. Arab Muslims who live in Israel certainly aren't using the same rhetoric you do, nor is literally the enti
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how you could get so *many* things wrong. Remember when the US had a civil war, after Manson and his family did the murders?
Yeah, neither do I. You're claiming no one in the Middle East has *any* reason to hate Israel, other than the propaganda by Iran.
We'll ignore what the Palestinian I was working with up to 2019, who called... I think it was Gaza, not the West Bank, an open air prison, with checkpoints by the IDF everywhere.
Oh, and the Sunnis (esp. the Wahabis, who were the ones who helped wi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're just fine with living in a cesspit, though, you do you.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, just resign and find a better job.
Re: (Score:1)
Wah! Dear whiners, then leave. Pick a country that represents you and emigrate. No one, absolutely, no one is stopping you. Take your assets, liquidate your physical assets, take your cash, buy a ticket an leave! Turn your passport in when you get to the other end.
If you don't like people trying to improve our country, maybe you should leave and find a conservative backwater.
Re: (Score:2)
Wah! Dear whiners, then leave. Pick a country that represents you and emigrate. No one, absolutely, no one is stopping you. Take your assets, liquidate your physical assets, take your cash, buy a ticket an leave! Turn your passport in when you get to the other end.
Do you apply the same reasoning to all the people trying to get into the US I wonder?
Re: (Score:2)
What these people should do is to practice more subterfuge and sabotage.
These weren't Democratic Socialist employees. :-)
Re: This is good for Google, I guess (Score:1)
https://killedbygoogle.com/