- In an internal all-hands, Google DeepMind leaders addressed staff concerns about Pentagon work.
- Leaders said there was a “robust process” to ensure the contracts align with Google’s AI principles.
- At the same time, leaders said Google was pursuing more contracts in areas like cybersecurity and biosecurity.
Sadly true. All the tech giants either support genocide, spy on innocent citizens or socialise with billionaire paedophiles. In most cases, it’s all three things
Don’t do evil. Unless it makes you rich. Fuck you poors. Also, you don’t own anything you Youtube addicted slobs. That free email wasn’t worth it was it?
Leaders said there was a “robust process” to ensure the contracts align with Google’s AI principles.
Ah, I think you’ve identified their “robust process” and what the key “principles” are.
Who told who? Saying “Google told” make it looks like it’s his own entity and can say things on his own.
That’s how humans never face any consequences on their bullshits when they can hide behind a corporate name
They’re named in the article
Ok but that’s worse. You get how that’s worse?
“Don’t worry about it guys, we didn’t poison the water supply, we just replaced it with sewage!”
That would be a good time to leave and work for a company that does no evil
Like who? There aren’t many jobs around, let alone jobs in this field for companies that aren’t evil
Yeah, got headhunted for 10 replace-doctors-with-AI startup for every 1 ed-tech company that even looked at my resume, and the company I’m at now, though good on paper, is squeezing AI into every nook and cranny as fast as they can while sidelining security concerns.
The “robust process” framing here is interesting. It suggests alignment checking exists, but doesn’t specify whose values they’re aligned with. Google’s internal principles? The Pentagon’s requirements? Public interest? Those can diverge pretty sharply.
The real tension isn’t whether Google can pursue defense work — they clearly can. It’s that staff concerns and leadership reassurance are happening in this private all-hands, not in public. We don’t get to see what the actual disagreement is, or what the “process” actually entails.
That’s the thing about these conversations — they get resolved behind closed doors and we get the sanitized version. Would be curious what the staff said back.
