3 ms·

I'm confused; would better image classification not reduce the potential for civilian casualties and other unnecessary collateral damage? I don't think the gove

I'm confused; would better image classification not reduce the potential for civilian casualties and other unnecessary collateral damage? I don't think the government would stop drone strikes if Google weren't involved, in any case.

praptak 9y ago
It boils down to how much you trust the US government to use this technology ethically. Also "they'd do that anyway" is not a very good argument wrt ethics.
mtgx 9y ago
I don't want my email provider to also become a defense contract (with all the corruption that entails). Also, I seem to recall Google promising not to become a defense contractor when they purchased Boston Dynamics, exactly because there was a backlash against them over that possibility. I also remember they went back on that promise literally months later when they started testing AR stuff with the military. Anyway, saying "Google is only helping the US government kill fewer innocents" is like saying "IBM was only helping the Nazi classify the people who really deserved to die in the gas chambers." So yeah, if Google can help it (and it certainly can), it should stay the f-out of military contracts. It doesn't want to go that road. I for one would certainly make an effort to use Google's servers less and less if it does. I mean, how long will it be until it starts offering a firehose to our data to the U.S. government, especially in "times of need" or because it wants to win some other big contracts with the government? Google has certainly been guilty of doing that (look how much more aggressive it has become against alleged copyright infringements with no proof ever since it started selling music and movies).
michaelt 9y ago
would better image classification not reduce the potential for civilian casualties and other unnecessary collateral damage? Richard Gatling, inventor of the first successful machine gun, wrote he hoped his invention would make war more humane, by reducing the need for large armies with the resultant exposure to battle and disease [1]. Fritz Haber, "father of chemical warfare", believed that deploying poison gas in WW1 would shorten the war, and thereby save lives [2]. It would seem people who work on military tech in the hopes of saving lives are often disappointed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jordan_Gatling#Gatling_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jordan_Gatling#Gatling... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/sep/16/chlorine-the-gas-of-war-crimes https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/sep/16/chlorin...
boomboomsubban 9y ago
Better image classification might also cause them to make more attacks, overall raising civilian casualties. As someone largely opposed to war, I would be upset to discover my work was being used for those purposes. It's bad enough that I'm forced to pay for it. I don't think that's what happened here though, and "the megacorp I work for also works with the military" would not surprise me.
megous 9y ago
Look at the Aleppo mosque bombing to see how US classifies drone images. It's basically a height of a person (proxy for age). I'd say it can't help, if they train it on how they currently classify images with no feedback from the ground. It may be good for PR though, and to help justify the killings. "Look, we use Google's world class AI technology!" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/06/07/u-s-finds-that-march-airstrike-that-struck-building-described-as-mosque-was-legal-and-resulted-in-one-civilian-casualty/?utm_term=.5f321690ac43 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/06/07...

praptak 9y ago

It boils down to how much you trust the US government to use this technology ethically. Also "they'd do that anyway" is not a very good argument wrt ethics.

mtgx 9y ago

I don't want my email provider to also become a defense contract (with all the corruption that entails). Also, I seem to recall Google promising not to become a defense contractor when they purchased Boston Dynamics, exactly because there was a backlash against them over that possibility. I also remember they went back on that promise literally months later when they started testing AR stuff with the military. Anyway, saying "Google is only helping the US government kill fewer innocents" is like saying "IBM was only helping the Nazi classify the people who really deserved to die in the gas chambers." So yeah, if Google can help it (and it certainly can), it should stay the f-out of military contracts. It doesn't want to go that road. I for one would certainly make an effort to use Google's servers less and less if it does. I mean, how long will it be until it starts offering a firehose to our data to the U.S. government, especially in "times of need" or because it wants to win some other big contracts with the government? Google has certainly been guilty of doing that (look how much more aggressive it has become against alleged copyright infringements with no proof ever since it started selling music and movies).

michaelt 9y ago

would better image classification not reduce the potential for civilian casualties and other unnecessary collateral damage? Richard Gatling, inventor of the first successful machine gun, wrote he hoped his invention would make war more humane, by reducing the need for large armies with the resultant exposure to battle and disease [1]. Fritz Haber, "father of chemical warfare", believed that deploying poison gas in WW1 would shorten the war, and thereby save lives [2]. It would seem people who work on military tech in the hopes of saving lives are often disappointed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jordan_Gatling#Gatling_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jordan_Gatling#Gatling... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/sep/16/chlorine-the-gas-of-war-crimes https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/sep/16/chlorin...

boomboomsubban 9y ago

Better image classification might also cause them to make more attacks, overall raising civilian casualties. As someone largely opposed to war, I would be upset to discover my work was being used for those purposes. It's bad enough that I'm forced to pay for it. I don't think that's what happened here though, and "the megacorp I work for also works with the military" would not surprise me.

megous 9y ago

Look at the Aleppo mosque bombing to see how US classifies drone images. It's basically a height of a person (proxy for age). I'd say it can't help, if they train it on how they currently classify images with no feedback from the ground. It may be good for PR though, and to help justify the killings. "Look, we use Google's world class AI technology!" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/06/07/u-s-finds-that-march-airstrike-that-struck-building-described-as-mosque-was-legal-and-resulted-in-one-civilian-casualty/?utm_term=.5f321690ac43 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/06/07...