Many users praised the speaker for courageously highlighting DeepMind dropping its no-military-use pledge for a Pentagon contract, while others dismissed the disclosure as naive obstruction or total surrender by Google.
Based on 11 visible X reactions from 59 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
Thank you for your courage in speaking about this publicly, Andreas. I don’t have access to this article, but another side of this is the undisclosed leverage the US administration has on Alphabet, including the FTC, that forced them to such an agreement. The current administration has little scruples in using them.
@BlackHC You are extremely naive (or filled with hubris) about all this. Google should fire you for obstructing it's AI progress or you should save everyone the trouble and resign and join a 'non-profit' where you can practice your virtue signaling
@BlackHC I said it before: Independent of your position, kudos for having a moral compass and taking risks. It‘s so rare these days.
@BlackHC @erinkwoo Thank you for your brave act of transparency 🙏🏽 Truly 🫶🏽
Thank you for your courage in speaking about this publicly, Andreas. I don’t have access to this article, but another side of this is the undisclosed leverage the US administration has on Alphabet, including the FTC, that forced them to such an agreement. The current administration has little scruples in using them.
@BlackHC You are extremely naive (or filled with hubris) about all this. Google should fire you for obstructing it's AI progress or you should save everyone the trouble and resign and join a 'non-profit' where you can practice your virtue signaling
@BlackHC I said it before: Independent of your position, kudos for having a moral compass and taking risks. It‘s so rare these days.
@BlackHC Leave. Leave. Leave now. You commie PoS.
@BlackHC You are the rot that is destroying google. Leave.
I work at Google DeepMind. This won't make me popular. But it's all public reporting: 2014: DeepMind reportedly sold to Google on conditions: no military use, independent oversight 2026: a Pentagon contract for "any lawful government purpose" Not one safeguard survived intact https://x.com/BlackHC/status/2077009476423647596/photo/1
Google says it is committed to the consensus that AI "should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weaponry without appropriate human oversight." "Should not" is not "must not." If these uses were truly prohibited, saying so would have taken fewer words. https://x.com/BlackHC/status/2077009520044483013/photo/1
I'm a Senior Research Scientist at Google DeepMind, writing in my personal capacity. More than 600 colleagues and I signed an open letter asking Sundar Pichai not to put our AI models on classified networks. The deal was signed anyway. I learned about it from the press.
A lawyer at the Institute for Law and AI told The Information that Google's "is not intended for, and should not be used for" phrasing is "not legally binding in any way." The @EFF called OpenAI's similar language full of "weasel words": placating, but not binding.
What should happen now? Google should publish the terms, or enough of them to show whether enforceable safeguards exist and what visibility remains in classified deployments. And it should tell employees what was signed. We need laws, not policy memos.
Many users praised the speaker for courageously highlighting DeepMind dropping its no-military-use pledge for a Pentagon contract, while others dismissed the disclosure as naive obstruction or total surrender by Google.
Based on 11 visible X reactions from 59 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@BlackHC You are the rot that is destroying google. Leave.
I work at Google DeepMind. This won't make me popular. But it's all public reporting: 2014: DeepMind reportedly sold to Google on conditions: no military use, independent oversight 2026: a Pentagon contract for "any lawful government purpose" Not one safeguard survived intact https://x.com/BlackHC/status/2077009476423647596/photo/1
Google says it is committed to the consensus that AI "should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weaponry without appropriate human oversight." "Should not" is not "must not." If these uses were truly prohibited, saying so would have taken fewer words. https://x.com/BlackHC/status/2077009520044483013/photo/1
I'm a Senior Research Scientist at Google DeepMind, writing in my personal capacity. More than 600 colleagues and I signed an open letter asking Sundar Pichai not to put our AI models on classified networks. The deal was signed anyway. I learned about it from the press.
A lawyer at the Institute for Law and AI told The Information that Google's "is not intended for, and should not be used for" phrasing is "not legally binding in any way." The @EFF called OpenAI's similar language full of "weasel words": placating, but not binding.