Why I Left Google DeepMind

eeatitraw about 4 hours ago 26 commentsRead Article on lesswrong.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

33% Positive

Analyzed from 563 words in the discussion.

Discussion (26 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

vintagedave•about 3 hours ago

Very long to read, but highly principled. I feel his desperation. Powerful people can too easily do little, and ignore their consciousness. I appreciate he named those he spoke to; it came across as fair, and makes them accountable for what they did or did not do.

hmokiguess•about 2 hours ago

However way people that are deep into the cog wake up I support it. Once the truth was seen you didn't bend and stood by your principles, it must have been very challenging to navigate that from the inside with your entire identity tied to and associated to the thing you ended up growing out from. Appreciate you, welcome to your new life. May you find peace and continue to do good work next.

tdb7893•about 2 hours ago

I'll always support someone taking a personal stand about what they can or cannot do. Ethical issues always invite the most criticism but my experience is that it's rare for anyone to really give anything up for their ethics (this person likely has money saved up and will land on their feet but even this situation is more than most people would do).

aleph_minus_one•about 2 hours ago

Primary source: https://turntrout.com/why-i-left-google-deepmind

1-6•about 1 hour ago

The virtue signaling is too much on this article. It could have been a well-written piece, but they had to make it about moral grandstanding.

layer8•10 minutes ago

“Virtue signaling” is when you don’t take meaningful action. The article author went out of their way to take meaningful action.

vintagedave•about 1 hour ago

Being ethical is the point.

golly_ned•43 minutes ago

Any case where someone takes a moral position is now called "virtue signaling" and "grandstanding."

cloudie78•about 2 hours ago

Wait, only now you realised that the “do no evil” meant jack shit?

How blind and ignorant really are you?

Let me attempt to save you from another horrifying realisation: it has hardly anything do with who’s in the office right now.

The horrors and evil will persist.

fragmede•about 2 hours ago

more comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48925271

gyanchawdhary•about 2 hours ago

painfully entitled and arrogant

readthenotes1•about 2 hours ago

I am outraged to find gambling in this casino!

What sort of ethics bubble was the author living in to believe that Google was anything but solely focused on achieving shareholder value?

pjmlp•about 2 hours ago

The same that believes in HR marketing like Do No Evil.

Ygg2•about 2 hours ago

Pretty sure they ditched that motto long time ago.

andriy_koval•about 2 hours ago

Still there:

And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of...

pjmlp•about 2 hours ago

They did, still doesn't change the kind of bubble we are talking about.

Ygg2•about 2 hours ago

I wonder if in a few years, there'll be heads of Google paraphrasing the old skit "You know, in hindsight, allowing autonomous AI drones to carry fusion bombs was a bad move, but for that one quarter we really earned a lot of shareholder value"

skew-aberration•about 2 hours ago

Not only that but his outrage is narrowly focused on contemporary US politics. Billions of people access food, shelter, medicine, education, etc, only by the rapidly diminishing leverage their labor provides (or doesn't provide) them. These people presumably never so much as picked up a book, or evenly briefly entertained a thought about a person outside their own immediate social circle.

fuadnafiz98•about 3 hours ago

Someone send this to Tucker Carlson

negamax•about 3 hours ago

You (the org) brought fire to the masses. How that fire is used (to build or burn the cities) is not for you do decide

Stand by and share your ethics concern. But this isn't misalignment. A lot of AI use cases will be constraint/reigned in through governance evolution at every scale

tw04•about 2 hours ago

Comparing it to fire isn’t really an apt comparison.

You developed the nuclear bomb. Would you give free access to every human on the planet to do with it as they see fit? Or would you demand responsible guardrails from the start?

AI companies want it both ways. This will both redefine humanity as we know it, but also nobody should try to enforce any guardrails. Why? Because it might hurt profits.

Either it’s snake oil and not as revolutionary as claimed, or people should be facing prison time for trying to claim “I just invented it and gave everyone access, I can’t be held responsible for what happens next”.

negamax•about 2 hours ago

Nuclear wasn't governed until the destruction was seen. There's no reason to believe AI wouldn't follow a similar path