The acts of the government being wrong in an upsetting amount of cases would be a big reason.

Because, we have pretty convincing historical precedent that 'just following orders' does not work as a defense when your government does something indefensible.

It’s not, but legal is not the same as ethical.

For a long time, and probably still, it was legal for the US to torture enemy combatants. It was never ethical.

What makes you think that Googles AI experts are US citizens?

working to directly advance a product used substantially to oppress people via surveillance or war crimes, when you have many other choices, is immoral. easy.

It’s not morally wrong per-se but just because you are working with your government does not mean what you’re doing is necessarily moral

Besides all the questionable and illegal stuff that the current government does, a lot of people don’t want to work on technologies that kill people.

Because the government is comprised of Nazis now and is waging wars of expansionist conquest abroad and murdering domestic dissidents at home. Anyone working toward enabling that deserves to be on the receiving end of the systems they build.

Are you intentionally lumping in all civic service in one moral bucket? Is working at the post office morally equivalent to developing panopticon technology to suppress protest and track citizens?

Weird, why is it morally right for anyone to work with immoral organizations? -- That's what's in the focus, right?

Whether the current government is immoral, or if government can be philosophically immoral is up to debate. But your question sounds like a deflection to me.

Sorry to Godwin the thread but the Third Reich would like a word.

Same thing that's wrong with enjoying a succulent Chinese meal.

Idk about morality, but it’s certainly a way to stop dystopian mass surveillance nightmares if everyone capable of building one refuses.

So if you live in the US and don’t want one government agency in the US to have this power (that is ambiguous under current law), one way you can try to avoid it is by refusing to sell it to them and urging others to do the same.

It’s a long shot sure, but it certainly seems more effective than hoping the legislature wakes up and reigns in the executive these days.

Given most government policies and direct engagement in all kind of monstrosities over the last millennia, there is really no reason to limit the case to USA, indeed.

You're using a strawman. This was never about just being employed by a government in the most tepid and universal sense.

Ex: "Why is it morally wrong for a US citizen to work with their government?", asked the employee compiling lists of American citizens of Japanese descent to be rounded up into Internment Camps.

Change the country from 'US' to 'China' or 'Iran'. And ask the question again.

Because their current government is immoral.

Because the American government is a criminal organization

Because the current government is a vindictive, murderous, proto-fascist government. (But you know that already.)

I'm not anti-military as a rule but... c'mon. Opinions on the US military vary.

In extremis, were the people working for Pol Pot just good patriots with no moral culpability?

We could surely at least agree that there are cases where working for the military of your home country doesn't fully excuse you from your actions.

In fact, I think international tribunals have existed which operated on just those principles.

because the country you live in is the united states? this is not complicated

We can all agree that working for the Nazi government’s military would be morally compromising, right?

You propose that other governments militaries would not be so compromising. Seems reasonable.

But the question then becomes, what is the operative distinction between the two?

I don't think the long-term game theory of race to the bottom works out quite how you think.

"Our enemies would have no qualms building a weapon that will end life on earth! We better build it first because we're the good guys!"

We also used to point to Russia and China as places we don't want to copy.

This was the same logic that was used when building nuclear weapons, and many of the scientists involved in that tried to find a different path (most notably Niels Bohr). I think we would be in a much better world if they had been successful. It's good that we're trying again w/ LLMs.

People in those countries do have qualms, they are people after all and they choose to work in other fields.

The US is sure becoming an unfree scary place just like Russia. Keep it up following those role models!

I don't know if you're being sarcastic(sounds like you are!) but indeed a lot of engineers left Russia after the war in Ukraine started as they didn't want to be drafted and didn't want to contribute to the war effort in some way, even if indirectly. Of course, many stayed or even willingly help. See how many engineers from Iran work abroad too, for moral and other reasons.

The point is - this happens everywhere, it's not just some weird western thing.

Probably because the articles are talking about how the AI will be used in immoral ways, and that the people who know that and continue doing the work must be morally compromised.

I know that there might be $several ways those highly-paid engineers might still rationalize their work. Some of them might have ideological reasons to treat entire classes of people as unworthy of life. Within the model of their ideologies, the most evil things might be perfectly moral.

I wonder what reasons you have to disagree with people's moral stance against using AI as a weapon.

It’s funny to me how many progressive people I know and am friends with who work at these AI companies which are marginalized demographics (Trans, Gay, Latino, Black).

Still have faded Bernie stickers on their cars, No Kings organizers, “fuck SF I’m in the east bay for life fuck tech” - and you all make 7 figures Monday - Friday by supporting the death of society and democracy.

I don’t dare say anything though because “money is money”, the bay is expensive..but I do sure as shit judge every single person I know who joined OAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta.

Yes ;)

I agree with the intent of your rhetorical question, so I'm jesting with you. I'm justifying my "yes" with the hopefully humorous distraction that every person, including American taxpayers, has at some point made a nonsustainable/selfish (my definition of immoral) decision.

An AI researcher can work anywhere they want, can't they? At the minimum they could work in a different field entirely. It seems like a false dichotomy to frame the question around laws.