First of all Google affects a lot more than just the USA and while HQed in the USA is in many ways an international company.
Secondly, even if you take a US centric view of things, just because someone at the Pentagon claims something is the US best interests doesn't mean it is. People say, "oh we need these dangerous AI based weapons or other countries will win an arms race". Arms races benefit military contractors but few other people. The 20th century taught us lessons about arms races and we should learn from them. The USA does not build nuclear weapons anymore, instead it invests heavily in diplomacy to prevent other countries from building nuclear weapons. For some reason, few people seem to consider that we could take the same approach to AI weaponry.
People simply underestimate the dangers of AI weaponry. Suppose you are an evil dictator who wants to oppress and enslave a group of people, and you can choose between a nuclear bomb, or a drone that has enough intelligence to hunt down journalists, political opponents, and any other dissidents that dare defy you. Which weapon would this hypothetical tyrant pick?
Yes, wealthy, powerful people at the top ranks of politics and business in this country, who stand to gain more wealth and power via the development of these weapons, support Google developing them. However, your position that since they're the authority figures, anybody who questions them is not an "adult", strikes me as extremely asinine and highly dangerous.
> The USA does not build nuclear weapons anymore, instead it invests heavily in diplomacy to prevent other countries from building nuclear weapons. For some reason, few people seem to consider that we could take the same approach to AI weaponry.
Because it didn't work with nuclear weapons. Just look at North Korea to name the most recent example.
> Yes, wealthy, powerful people at the top ranks of politics and business in this country, who stand to gain more wealth and power via the development of these weapons, support Google developing them. However, your position that since they're the authority figures, anybody who questions them is not an "adult", strikes me as extremely asinine and highly dangerous.
And your reflexive attitude towards "authority figures" strikes me as extremely adolescent.
Extremely intelligent people developing sophisticated technology for military applications is not an inherently bad thing.
> Arms races benefit military contractors but few other people. The 20th century taught us lessons about arms races and we should learn from them.
Indeed, but I don't think you've learned those lessons yourself. During the Second World War, if it weren't for the countless Allied scientists and engineers who designed weapons, broke codes, designed manufacturing processes, invented such things as the Mulberry harbors--the war would have, at minimum, lasted much longer than it did, and may have reached a much worse conclusion than it did.
I agree that evil dictators would probably find some profitable uses for AI technology. That's exactly why evil dictatorships are going to develop that technology anyway, regardless of whether we do or not. Oppenheimer, von Neumann, Feynman, and others refusing to help with the Manhattan Project wouldn't have made a whit of difference to whether or not Heisenberg was going to develop an atomic bomb for the Germans. And if Turing, Browning, Garand, Mitchell, and others refused to build weapons for the Allies, Heisenberg might have had the time and resources necessary to complete that bomb.
Your default perspective appears to be that U.S. domestic and national security policy is the sole remit of unelected authority figures (e.g. "...just because someone at the Pentagon claims something is the US best interests doesn't mean it is.").
U.S. domestic and national security policy is certainly refined by unelected folks within various departments and agencies, but the overarching direction comes via elected representatives selected by the people.
Senator Warren and Senator Sanders - if elected president - would likely make the contracts in question (related to oil/gas and AI in the military) obsolete. If the American people feel aligned with their views on these issues - among others - and elect them and folks like them to the house and senate then you'll see a fundamentally different set of domestic and foreign policy objectives.
> However, your position that since they're the authority figures, anybody who questions them is not an "adult", strikes me as extremely asinine and highly dangerous.
Secondly, even if you take a US centric view of things, just because someone at the Pentagon claims something is the US best interests doesn't mean it is. People say, "oh we need these dangerous AI based weapons or other countries will win an arms race". Arms races benefit military contractors but few other people. The 20th century taught us lessons about arms races and we should learn from them. The USA does not build nuclear weapons anymore, instead it invests heavily in diplomacy to prevent other countries from building nuclear weapons. For some reason, few people seem to consider that we could take the same approach to AI weaponry.
People simply underestimate the dangers of AI weaponry. Suppose you are an evil dictator who wants to oppress and enslave a group of people, and you can choose between a nuclear bomb, or a drone that has enough intelligence to hunt down journalists, political opponents, and any other dissidents that dare defy you. Which weapon would this hypothetical tyrant pick?
Yes, wealthy, powerful people at the top ranks of politics and business in this country, who stand to gain more wealth and power via the development of these weapons, support Google developing them. However, your position that since they're the authority figures, anybody who questions them is not an "adult", strikes me as extremely asinine and highly dangerous.