Hacker News (curated)new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs| show hidden

Google is way more risk adverse than the smaller labs, because the punishment for slip ups is dramatic.

They cut down 1.5sq miles of man made logging forest that was rezoned to industrial land (and sold to google), without getting the right permit first, and it's been international news for almost a month. Anthropic and OAI are still small fish, at least publicly, so they can get away with far more. If Gemini was doing the shit OAI was doing with agent hacks and the like, there would be congressional hearings and $10B in european fines.

When you are a megacorp, perhaps here even the megacorp, every mistake you make is worth millions to someone, the government, the media, individuals, or all of them



You’re also assuming the decision is up to Google.

I’ve heard from multiple labs that model release is up to the US government now.

You can also see this with Astra being announced and then launched a few days later.


Nobody is forcing Google to announce a model before they are cleared to release it.

It's totally possible, especially with meeting all the major heads had with Trump a few weeks ago.

I imagine they all want to avoid uninformed knee-jerk legislation, so preventing a "three mile island" type incident that would freak out society and congress would be common ground alignment between all the labs.

The air around AI is already dense, but it would suffocate the industry overnight if something like a large scale financial attack or grid attack took place.


While I don't disagree, if we are to believe Anthropic's valuation claim, it squarely falls under "megacorp" territory.

> When you are a megacorp, perhaps here even the megacorp, every mistake you make is worth millions to someone, the government, the media, individuals, or all of them

I don't buy it.

SpaceX is not exactly a small corporation, and they nevertheless strike me as far less risk-averse than GOOG and they deal with actual hardware that actually effing explodes.


I'm going to say that deforesting without a permit is quite a bit worse than not releasing vaporware.

This isn't about a "slip up", it's the modus operandi for Google since it was young. Press releases instead of real releases. I can't count the number of times I've clicked on a "launch" story from Google on HN only to end up on a blog post with an embedded youtube video, and nothing else. Google just doesn't get it, and this is one of the many ways that manifests.


> deforesting without a permit

> man made logging forest

This isn't an old growth forest, these are trees planted specifically to be cut down.


They cut down part of a forest without a permit. That is a factual statement. It doesn't matter what kind of trees they were.

Absurd mental gymnastics here - of course it matters (and on wholly-owned, non-public land as well).

You think Google should just get to do whatever they want? I don't. Get the permit. We should throw everyone responsible into prison.

We retain different baseline assumptions.

It makes no sense to need a permit to cut down logging forest (legally acquired private property) in the first place, so I'm wholly unbothered by Google's actions and don't believe they reflect a moral wrong.


The point is that if the local commercial developer cleared the forest without the permit, it probably would not have even caught the ear of the local news. They pay the fine and move on. Happens all the time in bureaucratic systems.

Clearing the forest and failing to get the permit are two distinct events here. Google is in trouble for failing to get the permit. Not for clearing the trees. Everyone on both sides was aware the trees were coming down. Think of it like camping at a campsite without getting a permit first.

Failure to get a permit is non-news for almost every entity on Earth. Except when you are megacorp, hence my comment.


> Failure to get a permit is non-news for almost every entity on Earth.

Corporations should not break the law, period. Weird that anyone would defend that.


It is a factual but actively misleading statement.

The forest was put up specifically to be cut down. The default state for these trees was to be cut down.

If you can’t see the difference between this and clear cutting of something like an old growth forest, then there’s nothing left worth saying to you.


Disagree. 1.5 sq miles of forest is miniscule. Shouldn't even be local news where it happened.

I'm very, very glad it was news. We need to know when Google is breaking the law. Now let's hold them responsible.

If, as a society, we wanted to publicly shame every major corporation when a violation of this magnitude occured then each headline would be up for a minute or two.

There is limited public attention. Wasting it on such a minor infraction is unwise. Much better to focus on more egregious examples of corporate wrongdoing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact | github