104
UK Google DeepMind employees vote to unionize over its AI defense deals (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 3 days ago by chobeat@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.zip
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] XLE@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago

This is mostly good; the bad is that the people unionizing would use the same pro-Military Industrial Complex language as OpenAI to explain their willingness to commit violent.

Employees pushing back on the deal are concerned that it could open the door for Google's technology to be used for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of American citizens.

The loopholes in this seemingly Wholesome Keanu Chungus statement are broad and pretty obvious if given a little thought. Employees allow for:

  • semi autonomous mass murder weapons
  • selective new AI surveillance
  • all the mass surveillance currently happening

If you dig any deeper into it, most of the linked articles from the Business Insider post point to AI Apocalypse fearmongering from Google and Google subsidiaries. Sigh.

[-] chobeat@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago

It's labor organizing, not intellectual engagement. The point is to build power in the company, not argue about vocabulary. Words are instrumental, they are not the goal.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Here's a hot take: If a union does bad things, those things are still bad. Like police unions. Hotter take: mass murder is bad.

Surely the brilliant minds at Google can think just a little bit about the loopholes? No?

[-] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Yes, but a union is a step in the right direction. You can't fix everything all at once.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Like I said, the unionization in this instance is mostly good. There's plenty of examples in the article that I left out because they're unobjectionable. It's just unfortunate seeing the union repeat talking points manufactured by their employer.

[-] chobeat@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

If you speak a language workers don't understand, you increase the cognitive load and lower interest and participation. It's a trade-off and it's an ineliminabile part of the game. Being correct and being useful are two different things

[-] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I find it a bit offensive that you assume Google employees can only comprehend the simplest language, and it's coincidentally the language handed to them from on high by Google themselves. (Ah. Dot ML.)

But let's assume you're correct, and engage in a little creativity to simplify employee complaints in order to make it have fewer loopholes.

Employees pushing back on the deal are concerned ~~that it could open the door for~~ Google's technology [could] be used for ~~autonomous~~ weapons and ~~mass~~ surveillance ~~of American citizens~~.

12 fewer words, 4 fewer loopholes (preexisting surveillance, semi autonomous weapons, selective surveillance, foreign mass surveillance).

[-] chobeat@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

I've been in tech labor organizing for 8 years at this point. I know written documents matter pretty much nothing for organizing, let alone tech workers organizing. And yes, tech workers need a simple language.

The statement you've written is very good to argue on the internet, but it closes any avenue for picking winnable issues in the real world. If the original one sets a clear, achievable goal (canceling a new contract), the one you wrote prevents any kind of realistic demand and sets an unachievable goal for a newly formed union.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I guess we're moving on from the topic of employee understanding on to the topic of negotiation.

On concession: Do they really need to concede to Google talking point verbatim? Why not argue for three gaping loopholes instead of four? Why not add a fifth to smooth things over? Or (even better): in order to differentiate themselves from every AI company that has the same fake "red line" doctrine, they could omit it altogether.

[-] chobeat@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

because these statements are instrumental to building power. They are not a draft of a negotiation proposal. They are a galvanizing message for workers, not a formal demand. Without power, formal demands are pointless. To build power, clarity, concreteness and directness beats idealism, rigour and formalism every day.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Okay.... Guess we aren't talking about concessions or simplicity now... Moving on to a new point, 3/3?

If the statements aren't used for negotiation purposes, then they should be much clearer and not tow the Google line, right?

The formal "red line" doctrine is intentionally unclear and based on the idealist belief that AI will somehow become super powerful. Meanwhile a statement without big holes is more concrete, and less shaky wording makes it more direct.

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 3 days ago

Google tech can be used for weapons and surveillance (and are) right now and without AI. If the union wanted that to be their line in the sand then their jobs would cease to exist

[-] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Do you just propose the union just adopt Google's exact stance on this? Are you willing to accept a weaker one? A much weaker one, perhaps? Where do you draw your lines?

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 3 days ago

I propose that the union membership itself knows a fuck a lot better than I do do I'm not gonna not pick specifics I don't personally like with THEIR negotiating position

[-] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You were just speaking on their behalf...

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 3 days ago

Newp

[-] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

Who said "If the union wanted that to be their line in the sand then their jobs would cease to exist"?

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Me. That was a statement of fact

[-] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Provide a citation from the union that knows better than you to back up your opinion, please

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago

It's not an opinion to state that Google tech is already used in war

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 3 points 3 days ago

The alternative is:

Less money for workers

More AI murderbots.

If the union is successfull it means more money for workers, and less AI murderbots.

Please point out if I'm wrong somewhere.

[-] XLE@piefed.social -1 points 3 days ago

I choose option 3. A union with better policies. I don't see what's preventing them from providing them.

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 0 points 3 days ago

The union membership have supports this. Do you know better or something?

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

police union is more like a gang/mafia that an actual union.

this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
104 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

6723 readers
1135 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.

Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.

Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
BrikoX@lemmy.zip