Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree?
> The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models.
Seems concerning?
> The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models.
Seems concerning?
So Google can't tell the government it needs a warrant to perform a search? Google can't sue over something the government did?
It's Google's product they want to buy.
now follow orders.
And again, it's Google's product. Why can't they set conditions? If I pay Google to host my email, I'm still subject to their policies.
(Yes, I recognize that past military entanglements do read as favors for Big Oil, but that’s more because lobbyists directly purchased the corrupt and useless Congress)
A mechanism to address this exists, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950
The main issue here is that Congress is asleep at the wheel and has refused to implement any sort of guardrails around how the government is and is not allowed to use AI.
question as old as time itself
Also, this is probably the only acceptable arrangement when it comes to industry-government contracts. The government will always have more information than civilians.
Congress and the courts obviously.
If you think there's a hole in the law tell your congressman, don't, for some reason, try and put Google or any Ai company above the government.
The first is fully neutered. The second is far too slow.
"Nothing unlawful" needing to be in the contract is inherently concerning, as it's typically the default, assumed state of such a thing.
The location is classified.
Ok all jokes aside, if you suspect that there’s wrongdoing in the classified sphere, and it really matters to you, well, you should get involved in politics. We don’t just let everyone everywhere know everything, because we think it would be risky if Putin or the Chinese Communist Party also knew all those things. So we limit it to people who have taken oaths and are accountable and need to know (the military), the civilians who need to know (security clearance holders), and those who hold a high office with the public’s trust (high-ranking politicians). You can be a Senator. You just need a lot of people to trust you enough to vote for you. Or, and this is a bit easier, support politicians you do trust to vet classified things to be elected to high office, and ask them to look into it and give you their word that things are being done properly.
This is why we elect competent (hopefully) leaders to worry about these things for us. Mob rule democracy about every national secret would mean they’re not secrets for very long!
Surely you are responsible for the consequences of what you do, no matter how indirect? After all, we live in physical reality, not in some world of laws.
If you cause something you cause that thing. You are reponsible, even if it is through some long chain.
No, that’s preposterous. You are not responsible for the actions of others simply because your actions put them in a place to perform said actions. That seems like a very stressful way to go through life.
I am kind of mad at James Cameron here. Skynet was evil but interesting. Reallife controlled by Google is evil but not interesting - it is flat out annoying.