Reflections on Google’s Motto and AI Concerns

Many might recall when Google’s guiding principle was straightforward: “Don’t be evil.” However, following its restructuring under Alphabet in 2015, the motto became a more ambiguous “Do the right thing.” There was also a mission statement floating around — “to organize the world’s information” — but, honestly, that never quite had the same ring to it.

A surge of discussion erupted this week among influential tech policy figures, returning to a fundamental principle: avoid immoral actions. This was largely spurred by the so-called AI doomers, whose peculiar brand of doomsday thinking — suggesting we create a dangerous entity to subsequently save ourselves from it — has finally made its way beyond tech circles into the broader political discourse.

The ongoing drama has complexities deeper than what headlines might suggest. The pivotal moment is the rapid response from the White House and allies aiming to reaffirm basic guidelines reminiscent of a time when “not being evil” was a clear goal.

While Trump has garnered much attention for meme-like portrayals suggesting “Americanism, Not Effective Altruism!”, his vice president captured a critical insight succinctly: “If you’re building Frankenstein, stop!”

This resonates with the theme that attempting to create a harmful entity — statistically posing a threat to humanity, for instance — is widely deemed fundamentally wrong. Yet, remarks by JD Vance also highlight that the effort to create a “new man,” even from noble intentions, carries its own moral complications.

The doomers argue that to prevent the evils they may enact, they should hold some form of global governing authority. In contrast, Vance advocates for a simpler solution: to spare the world from potential harm, just don’t engage in harmful actions from the start.

The vice president, like his predecessors, showcases a strong partisan stance. Still, his clever, folksy expression resonates within the anti-doomer rhetoric now echoing throughout the tech industry. Even Microsoft recently introduced a guideline warning against certain developments. Mustafa Suleyman, Microsoft’s AI CEO, shared their new “Humanist AI Code of Conduct,” which asserts that AI should not mimic consciousness; it should avoid suggesting any semblance of feelings or motives.

Microsoft’s stance also explicitly rejects the notion of granting legal personhood to AI, or implying they deserve any form of rights. So, no more creations akin to Frankenstein!

At Palantir, CTO Shyam Sankar articulated similar thoughts in a past interview, observing that, in Silicon Valley, many are attempting to fill a spiritual void with AI. He noted that those with faith are often the most skeptical of the idea of creating a god-like entity to fix the world — a concept that, ironically, mirrors a religious philosophy. Conversely, for some transhumanists, it seems to be a comforting wish.

Even Jensen Huang of Nvidia, typically not associating with spiritual viewpoints, recently expressed an economically charged sentiment laced with a touch of spirituality. He suggested that companies should hold off on releasing products unless they’re confident in their safety and functionality. The implication? If there’s a nagging feeling suggesting a product isn’t right, maybe think twice before launching it.

Ultimately, this highlights a significant possibility: you can simply choose to refrain from certain actions!

However, Huang’s reasoning could be misleading. The belief that market forces will naturally deter bad actions doesn’t always hold true. Currently, unethical experiments involve the unsettling practice of implanting human brain structures into lab-engineered mice, allowing them to integrate with the animals’ nervous systems.

We must assert: No! This is wrong — evil, even! But the reality is some are indeed proceeding with such actions. It’s essential now, more than ever, for individuals to reflect on their intentions and examine their own capacity for wrongdoing before passing judgment on others. Spiritual resolve alone isn’t sufficient to keep society grounded. We cannot simply look disapprovingly at those with good intentions as they blur the lines around what it means to be human — regardless of how advanced our technologies might be.