HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
61% Positive
Analyzed from 6222 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#google#moral#don#compass#company#evil#companies#war#dei#military
Discussion (152 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
But claiming that google lost it's "moral compass" just now is a claim only rich people can make because they retire, not quit.
Google is literally the largest, most organized, tracking and profiling company in the world. Which they tend to grow even larger with the rise of LLMs.
Turning a blind eye of that for the opportunity or whatever, and than claim that _just now_ they lost their moral compass, is being a hypocrite.
The company is constantly changing, but also hasn't changed all that much. It always talked the talk and was eager to tell others how to behave, but was almost never willing to give up any real revenue to do the right thing. The usual justification was that if Google doesn't do it, someone else will (and that someone else is obviously not as moral as Googlers are).
If you're old enough, you might remember that they vocally opposed privacy-violating, disruptive display ads. That was their whole schtick. But that was before they realized there's a lot of money to be made by acquiring Doubleclick.
Its really hard to take such articles seriously. Its borderline gaslighting and says a lot more about the author than Google or US politics. In fact, even though I have no idea who this person is, I don't have a good opinion of them after reading this. And that ironically was the exact opposite of the intended effect of writing this for the author.
Google's moral compass was gone long before this man even joined. That doesn't make them particularly evil, but they have joined the ranks of ordinary, publicly traded corporations.
All of my stock has finally vested, and I am independently wealthy enough to signal that I'm quitting purely based on my morals, since there's no way anyone could have known Google wasn't some ethical bastion of hope in 2017.
People who don't ever consider or speak of morals or ethics are beside the point.
I mean, I think you meant it somewhat derisively (if not, apologies), but it's absolutely true. I work for two reasons: it gives me a higher quality of living and it anchors my life by creating structure.
I could choose to not work and be very frugal and probably be ok. But I might have to re-enter the job market later in life due to rising costs after my skills have atrophied (been there, it's horrible; no one will consider you). Or I can make certain that when the day comes that I'm ready to be done, it's at a time when making it to death without financial hardship has a much higher probability. I can also afford to enjoy nice things rather than pinching pennies.
I also know that I have a tendency to spin out if I have too much free time and not enough going with routine and a sense of contributing. Combined with the above, this means I am free to work where I want to work, doing the absolute easiest thing I can find that I still consider rewarding. I don't have to chase money or promotions (I want as little responsibility as possible).
I can walk away tomorrow if my org does something I consider unethical. I can hold out for a position that meets the above criteria rather than taking the first job I see because of desperation. When my previous employer had layoffs, I was able to remain comfortable for six months while only applying to jobs I genuinely wanted.
There's no amount of money that a Meta, Google, OpenAI, etc could offer me because even though it'd be nice to own a house in the Bay Area, I'm satisfied renting until death and don't need more than the very nice spacious home I've already got. I hit the jackpot and I'm grateful every day.
However its the statement that "Google lost its moral compass" has never really been true.
Its pretty clear at this point that companies solely respond to economic tides, which are governed by what people truly want. And Id argue that people in general have lost their moral compass (in the sense of how they vote, in politics and with their wallet, not what they say)
This is not about "believing in anything" other than a stable job and money. I respect the author that he felt this moral tradeoff was enough.
I'm afraid, we cannot expect anything else from every publicly owned company, because sadly, it's in human nature to be selfish if you are not the one who suffers from your actions.
"And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"
Sorry this is one of those things that bugs me - but "don't be evil" was never removed from their code of conduct. It's placement was moved though from the start to the end, and you could argue whether it's less important because of that if you want.. but it is still there.
I quit my job working for oil and gas companies, and taught myself how to code and then worked at a company that actually made non-asshole software that went on to IPO so things worked out.
I didn't choose to help oil and gas companies, the company I worked for had them as customers so the work I did helped oil and gas. I chose to give up the money and do something else.
So I don't give a fuck about downvotes. I actually lived it, and I don't give a fuck anymore either to call people out.
Don't get me wrong. I hate war. And never-ending wars like the Iraq War anger me to no end (and for that matter, I think G.W. Bush and his cabinet were truly evil). Of course, the danger is real; a military built for defense can easily become an instrument of tyranny or empire if left unchecked. That is why we must maintain rigorous civilian oversight and strict checks and balances over its power. But that does not mean the military, by default, is always evil, right?
[1] As I get older, I'm more sympathetic to Colonel Jessup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk.
Agree or disagree with particular foreign policy or military action, why do people forget that the bulk of military is staffed with their fellow citizens? Many of whom aren't terribly privileged to enjoy ample alternative choices to elevate themselves socially or financially. It is exactly this lot who benefits the most from DEI policies, cherished by "pacifists", is it not? It is them who are the first and most massive direct casualties, caused by not having access to the best, superior materiel, doctrine and training on and beyond the battlefield.
I'll be the first to point that military and paramilitary forces attract many with unchecked lust for violence. That "pride", "honor" and "patriotism" are often terribly misused, to uphold goals of those with impure, malicious ambitions. Who, I grant it, also disproportionately represented in the command echelons of military and beyond. But if we are honest, that scum won't be shaken or taught a lesson by SotA technology being withheld from their use or corporation refusing cooperation. It is their subordinates, who, maybe naively, subscribe to "ideal", unquoted interpretation of Pride, Honor and Patriotism, will bear the brunt of being crippled (by the consequences of the withholding and refusal) on the battlefield, and pay with their lives. Don't their lives matter?
This quote sums up the current situation:
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
Incidentally, I'd feel the same way about killing someone in self-defense.
I've developed an involuntary, muscle-level reflex that forces me to close the tab immediately when I read these "not just X -- it was Y" LLMisms.
I realize the author might be human and am sorry if that's the case, but I can't help it.
Maybe this is the future of all (interesting/worthwhile) human writing. Perpetually stay one step ahead of the machines.
My low-confidence theory is that it's an artifact of making the LLMs better at coding.
My two cents: think carefully if that pattern is a really great way to say what you want to say in your book. If it is, leave it, if you could say it better, change it.
How LLMs write and how people feel about them is evolving and the current dynamic will pass...
20 some odd years ago I read zen in the art of motorcycle maintenance, and it made the point that writing is hard when trying to decide what to say and how to say it at the same time. Just stuck with me. Brain dumping into an LLM is one way to get some momentum.
That said, the negation parallel pattern LLMs overuse drives me nuts and I'm always having to manually edit those out. I can't help but wonder if there is an advantage to thinking like that that helps with coding. E.g. defensive negation in coding probably improves code quality, but it dilutes good writing when over used.
But what happens when you no longer feel that you have a decent chance of being able to determine that something might have been created with LLM assistance? Do you not mind because you can't tell anyway, or do you refuse to read anything at all for fear of potentially consuming some LLM assisted work?
I'm fine with it as long as it's not full of the usual signals, because that's just bad writing that I don't enjoy.
Complete joke, do some introspection.
I’d just like to add, as always: this person should give back all the money Google paid them. Of course, that has not once happened in the history of these pious pieces, and so the meme endures.
Such a bizarre claim. EU academics seem under mass psychosis lately.
He is a top expert on a security topic. Running Android platform security gives him an opportunity to have incredible positive impact for many people---which he did for a decade.
People weigh trade-offs.
At the beginning, he may have had high ambitions to deploy interesting, research-forward ideas to Android; at this point, he has accomplished a lot of that. Maybe now, he is considering other factors.
Guessing that people are only money-driven or have made some decision because of threshold personal wealth is awful, especially if you do not know them.
Almost all academics I know (I am one also) are driven by personal curiosity, intellectual ambitions, a need to identify and solve problems, and a strong desire for positive contribution. I know Rene and believe this to be true of him.
Much harder than taking the money and blindly following management decisions.
Is this the person I have to complain about for the removal of fulldisk encryption in Android 13?
Pretty nice life if you ask me.
Google management lost its moral compass in 2017 when they fired James Damore for writing a memo critiquing their gender diversity efforts. They were never serious that employees were expected to bring their own identity and values into the job, they only thought this with respect to identities and values they were already mostly-aligned-with.
But let's be honest, the guy was kind of unhinged. I would not have fired him, but neither would I have kept him in my team.
Let’s be honest, though. That’s firing from your team.
In response to a "let a thousand flowers bloom and speak your mind" request from Google management snakes. The problem is that some tech people take these requests seriously.
Google of course has identified itself as Trump sycophants and hypocrites by now. Maybe they should invite Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad and Elon Musk to give keynote speeches.
Alas.
We had a mental health slack channel, and a racial politics one that rehashed Israel/Palestine daily.
We had one of those. Not slack, self hosted internal stuff. Some "senior by tenure but not title" people decided the only thing that could come of it was people running their mouths to everyone's detriment and start trolling it until nobody took it seriously and then it was quietly "collateral damage" in a migration that was also arranged.
One rarely stated thing I learned over time working there is that managers read eng-misc and will prevent you from transferring to their team if they didn't like what you said, or how you said it, or who you said it to.
Creating a distaste in people without like minds has been an intentional goal to cause exodus after exodus on various platforms, in companies and so on. If you let that get out of control, you can poison a culture almost unrecoverably. We can't let that happen to our critical tech companies for national security reasons.
The previous policies simply reflected the culture of employees and HR managers that had graduated from universities that openly practiced race-conscious admissions after Grutter v. Bollinger. The change in policy likely came not from the new administration, but the Supreme Court's SFFA decision in 2023 that reminded everyone the civil rights laws require race blindness.
Ive had them demand my pronouns. I really dont care, but saying that is absolutely not acceptable. Ill use your pronouns. I really do not care.
Ive been in meetings with 'land acknowledgements' with whatever former indians/native americans who were there. Its not like we're giving them the land back.
DEI and what it turned into was a big for-public-show that you knew the buzzwords and the antiwords. And if you didnt, or woukdnt play along, theyd ruin you.
The current MAGA MAHA meritocracy crap is also just the opposite, but the same games as DEI folks. They have their buzzwords and antiwords. Although, theyre a whole lot stupider and easier to manipulate and deal with.
The actual reason for the "corporate DEI" in tech was that since Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), EEOC could sue companies that had lower minority proportion than population norm for discrimination, and could could prove the discrimination in court using nothing but the racial makeup of the employees, and some policy at the company that could in theory have disparate impact. And under their standards, literally any policy has disparate impact.
This hit other sectors first, to which they responded by hiring more minorities. But tech had the problem that schools were consistently producing fewer minority engineering grads than the population proportion, and in a world where approximately every engineer got employed, some US tech companies would have to have lower minority representation than the population no matter what they did. And because the disparity between engineering grads and racial population proportion was so high, in fact most large companies would fail to meet the necessary minority proportions.
But EEOC would not instantly file suit against every offender, instead they would file ~40 such suits per year, targeting large companies that they considered particularly bad. And so companies that felt they might get hit soon started doing DEI programs, at first to attract more minority engineers (from other companies in the same sector, which would then fall under the limit, making it zero-sum), but then they realized that the EEOC didn't really sue the companies that were the loudest at touting their DEI credentials, and it all became extremely performative, no longer trying to attract minority talent but to be the loudest company talking about the subject. Iterate over that for a few decades and it got really weird.
It ended because Trump named 3 SC justices on his first term, and in a few important cases between 2023 and today, the new SC tore the whole thing down, and suing a company for disparate impact is now considered unconstitutional.
The support of war efforts is clearly a change in moral compass that is much more fascinating though.
I find it is a deeply cynical move, to be asked to place the James Damore "was it employer overreach-or-not?" episode in similar proportion to critiquing a company's actions regarding issues such as mass surveillance and/or assisting war efforts, especially when the accusations about those broader issues are tied to complicity in the 2020s resurgence in fascist politics. It is so cynical that I can't believe it isn't intentional.
They lost their moral compass a while ago, but it had nothing to do with Damore.
But that “critique” of gender diversity efforts said that the lack of women in CS was due to some innate difference in women (rather than a social division that is neither innate nor universal across time or cultures) While also decrying the lack of affirmative action for conservatives.
It’s neither the tipping point for Google, nor is it a hill worth dying on
I'm sure either of us could quickly find a bunch of people who would like to one or several of those acceptable again, yet us finding that such people exist would not tell us a damned thing about whether dismantling those protections is a good idea. Or supposing it does, then one might even make the case that those people existing is an excellent reason for having such a law in the first place.
What statistical argument did Damore make?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170813080340/https://www.theat...
We must also look at the effect of his memo, which was to alienate many, and which caused a backlash that led to his firing. The company did not make a big deal of it just to fire him, it was individuals who were personally impacted and offended by it who made it what it was.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380791-NLRB-Advice-...
> statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
Any statement to the idea of a moral compass is just a form of marketing when the politics of the day align with it.
The best we can to is have independent moralities, while balancing that with the need to eat.
So if you decided to go in 2017 with all that happened since, your moral compass was already broken with google's. Snowden already revealed what all that data was used for with program like PRISM. You already seen the total lack of interest in preventing scams in their ads as long as it brings money. You've seen the antitrust fines. The tax avoidance schemes. The election influence concerns over youtube content.
What I read is "I know have made enough money from Google immorality, I can virtue signal by taking an early retirement and pretend I'm a great person".
These people who act like it's all suddenly gone down hill weren't there or weren't paying attention. If someone believes Goog's only turned to shit since about 2017, they were mislead, probably by the paychecks that kept them from looking too closely.
The military work came out in 2018
The slogans are on the walls because they are not in our hearts.
Google has not changed its moral compass in 20 years. You just didn't want to admit it
Instead of monetising software sales, they monetised access to Free software performing an end run around the GPL by distributing access to it over the internet allowing them to make the public good proprietary google property. They threw out some crumbs at best.
Remember the un-publicised puzzles to paradoxically get media attention, hiring highschool kids with a demo that made the news because it made the news and all the rest of the BS. I guess it worked. Now they're big and bad and the Free software optimism is largely dead so they don't have to bother and now make killbots for the Pentagon.
Where else you gonna work? Go test the market, nerd.
They are now openly partnering with war industries and the government to assist them in doing things like bombing a school full of girls, killing hundreds in an entirely indefensible war of aggression.* This is a very dark red line to cross and despite Googlers being wealthy and privilaged, it is nonetheless a significant protest that deserves to be heard on its own terms. Ideally, a protest would change policy at the company.
Google management: Stop cooperating with the immoral and illegally operating War Department!
* I don't have evidence Google directly participated in the Minab school bombing, but this is the side they are supporting.
> 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms.
Really?
Algorithms for ads and mass surveillance were always at the core of Google model.
And there is not really such thing as "internationally accepted norms", Google, as a pioneer, literally defined them at the time.
You may not have been around back then, but we had half a decade of Google before that model, and it was quite nice, nice enough to get us to leave our other search providers--and to hand them the keys to our inboxes.
sorry not being a jerk but many of these kinds of posts just come off as performative and attention seeking. you could have just quit, literally everyone knows how FAANG operates.
These are the most successful companies in the history of the world. What do you expect? DO you need a PhD to figure this out?
So if our enemies had no qualms at all about doing this, wouldn't it make sense that we have weapons that can at least counter, and potentially fight back? Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland?
> "Don't be evil"
Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
He has, and has had, a specific moral philosophy he follows. When he took the job the public (and once he started, internal) words and actions of the company fit within that philosophy (or closely enough). Now the company has changed and they don’t fit. Further, the obvious changes happened without any real notice or explanation.
It seems reasonable in that situation to leave. FWIW; I was in the same situation, and left.
Do you fault him for his personal moral code? He is not telling you how you should act.
Regarding this specifically:
> Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland?
it again depends on what exactly said AI does. If it's used to surveil most people most of the time, for example, then that probably does reduce the odds of an ISIS-linked attack on US, but the surveillance itself would be a greater injury at that scale.
*or this is an inter-capitalist war
Our experiences with a few instances of something is rarely sufficient for us to suggest or imply some kind of universality.
Describe that scenario to me. What precisely is the language model going to do? To defeat a _terrorist_ organization? I feel like this is way to asymmetric of a philosophy to actually work, but, I'm curious to know what your imagination holds on this one.
> Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
The government _is_ impotent in protecting you. If they weren't we wouldn't need courts. Or a constitution. Or the revolution which started it.
Finally, there is an argument to be made, that our government, and it's imperious ways, were the primary force which led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Perhaps if we weren't telling lies about yellow cake and mobile chemical labs while indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians we wouldn't be facing such a ridiculous world security posture.
When they rename "Department of Defense" to "Department of War", there can be no mistake about the intention of the government. They aren't "protecting" us, they are actively starting unnecessary wars, because cruelty has always been the point for them.
I assume if he actually felt threatened personally he wouldn't have any issues with developing weapons (through full-disk encryption or unbreakable DRM or locking people out of their devices or whatever).