I agree that “strategically incompetent compliance” is often a smart strategy. However, Google’s deal explicitly states they can’t veto use cases and affirms they will weaken / retool their safety stack to fit the needs of the US military. I don’t see a way they could be “strategically” agreeing and non-complying, if that’s a position you mean to argue for.
Plus, I don’t think Google leadership cares to do so. My impression is Sergey is on-board, Page is checked out, Jeff was against but not particularly firmly (and is now gone), Demis was on-board while convincing himself it was the right thing (and is now basically out), Sundar is following the political winds, and you won’t get non-compliance from Kurian (Cloud CEO). So who in the chain is pushing for strategic non-compliance? Koray (new SVP leading GDM post-Demis)? Doubtful.
a Trump-antagonistic Google
Aside: “Not providing a product to the military” should not be considered “antagonistic” to the government.
I agree that “strategically incompetent compliance” is often a smart strategy. However, Google’s deal explicitly states they can’t veto use cases and affirms they will weaken / retool their safety stack to fit the needs of the US military. I don’t see a way they could be “strategically” agreeing and non-complying, if that’s a position you mean to argue for.
Plus, I don’t think Google leadership cares to do so. My impression is Sergey is on-board, Page is checked out, Jeff was against but not particularly firmly (and is now gone), Demis was on-board while convincing himself it was the right thing (and is now basically out), Sundar is following the political winds, and you won’t get non-compliance from Kurian (Cloud CEO). So who in the chain is pushing for strategic non-compliance? Koray (new SVP leading GDM post-Demis)? Doubtful.
Aside: “Not providing a product to the military” should not be considered “antagonistic” to the government.