5 ms·

Very respectable decision in my book. Walking the walk, not just talking the talk. You just can't abstract yourself away from ethical decisions ad infinitum. T

by jahaja 8y ago

Very respectable decision in my book. Walking the walk, not just talking the talk. You just can't abstract yourself away from ethical decisions ad infinitum. The level of self-deception needed to convince oneself that this, or whatever US military tech for that matter, would only be used for defensive purposes is mind-boggling to me.

sjg007 8y ago
Well... yes and no.. AI research is funded and has developed out of darpa contracts. If you rule out the abstraction then we’d have no research. But it’s fine if they say they don’t wa t to do this particular work.
- jahaja 8y ago
  Hence the 'ad infinitum'. There's always a spectrum.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    I’m suggesting it’s turtles all the way down. The AI class you take in college is based on results from DARPA funded grants on say threat assessment or battlefield awareness or even automated defense technologies. It’s exactly the same except where you are on the R&D product timeline.
- retSava 8y ago
  The thing is that you can't simply lump all military-related activities into one heap. There's a scale from passively only reacting in self-defense when acted upon, to actively seeking engagement on foreign ground. This thing Google helps with, parsing and scanning through drone visual feeds, typically ends up on the latter end of the scale. Sure, it could be used for parsing feeds from drones monitoring the US borders to Canada/Mexico, or cattle or whatever, but that's not the case here.
  - mc32 8y ago
    One could argue if a military will keep on using drones, is it “better” for them and us to better discern an enemy more accurately to minimize non enemy casualties, or continue with present incidental collateral death rates? It’s not as simple as I’m against droning—that’s going to continue so long as the electorate demands minimized losses on our side (a very good argument, one leftists leveraged to try to get the US to disengage from previous wars), droning and it’s capabilities will continue.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      "One could argue" many things. We have more than the two choices you present. We could add more people to the task instead of using machines. We can redefine what "enemy" means such that anyone who dies in a target area is an "enemy" - poof! no incidental collateral deaths. We can allow, say, the objections of the crew of the AC-130 to override possibly illegal orders which result in targeting hospitals. There are a great many things we can do; enough to suggest that what you propose as the goal to consider likely isn't an important US goal.
      - mc32 8y ago
        Sure, the point is frustrating the govt’s attempt at better data means that they might have to revert to one of the options you posed which would be contrary to the goals sought by those objecting to google’s getting involved —undercutting their own argument.
bb88 8y ago
The history of technology and the military in the US is more complex than the myopic "Military is Bad" style of arguments that have been vogue as of late. Preventing the US military from using that technology doesn't stop China or Russia from upgrading their systems to use it.
- posix_me_less 8y ago
  > "The history of technology and the military in the US is more complex than the myopic "Military is Bad" style of arguments that have been vogue as of late." It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. People mostly know it is important to have a military. But that does not mean supporting all its current activities. > "Preventing the US military from using that technology doesn't stop China or Russia from upgrading their systems to use it." I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument. The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. One can go as far as say that the faster the U.S. develops it, the faster the Russians and Chinese will have it. The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc.
  - bb88 8y ago
    > It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. You may be right, but that's an issue with the white house administration and those telling the military what to do, not with the military itself. It has always seemed to me that if you never liked what the military was doing, it was a political disgreement, not an issue with the military itself. > I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument. > The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. It seems to me that wanting military superiority (or equality in some cases) is enough of a reason to pursue new weapon systems, and that will happen regardless of whether or not the US has the technology. Einstein sent a letter to the US president in 1939, and then two more in 1940 to warn the US of upcoming technological advances and urged the US to start a nuclear weapons program. I mention this, because we developed nuclear weapons out of fear that someone else would do it, and we needed a deterrent. And that was obvious to people like Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_... > The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc. That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty.
RickJWagner 8y ago
I respect the workers for walking away. If they are committed pacifists, then more power to them. As for me, I'm a proud military veteran. I believe a strong US military helps make the world a better and safer place. So I'd keep that job and work it as best as I could. Different strokes for different folks. Life's too short to hate people who think differently.
- posix_me_less 8y ago
  Yours is an interesting opinion - what makes you 'believe a strong US military helps make the world a better and safer place'? Did you think about the probabilities that this strong military will be misused to do the opposite?

by jahaja 8y ago

sjg007 8y ago

Well... yes and no.. AI research is funded and has developed out of darpa contracts. If you rule out the abstraction then we’d have no research. But it’s fine if they say they don’t wa t to do this particular work.

jahaja 8y ago
Hence the 'ad infinitum'. There's always a spectrum.
- sjg007 8y ago
  I’m suggesting it’s turtles all the way down. The AI class you take in college is based on results from DARPA funded grants on say threat assessment or battlefield awareness or even automated defense technologies. It’s exactly the same except where you are on the R&D product timeline.
retSava 8y ago
The thing is that you can't simply lump all military-related activities into one heap. There's a scale from passively only reacting in self-defense when acted upon, to actively seeking engagement on foreign ground. This thing Google helps with, parsing and scanning through drone visual feeds, typically ends up on the latter end of the scale. Sure, it could be used for parsing feeds from drones monitoring the US borders to Canada/Mexico, or cattle or whatever, but that's not the case here.
- mc32 8y ago
  One could argue if a military will keep on using drones, is it “better” for them and us to better discern an enemy more accurately to minimize non enemy casualties, or continue with present incidental collateral death rates? It’s not as simple as I’m against droning—that’s going to continue so long as the electorate demands minimized losses on our side (a very good argument, one leftists leveraged to try to get the US to disengage from previous wars), droning and it’s capabilities will continue.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    "One could argue" many things. We have more than the two choices you present. We could add more people to the task instead of using machines. We can redefine what "enemy" means such that anyone who dies in a target area is an "enemy" - poof! no incidental collateral deaths. We can allow, say, the objections of the crew of the AC-130 to override possibly illegal orders which result in targeting hospitals. There are a great many things we can do; enough to suggest that what you propose as the goal to consider likely isn't an important US goal.
    - mc32 8y ago
      Sure, the point is frustrating the govt’s attempt at better data means that they might have to revert to one of the options you posed which would be contrary to the goals sought by those objecting to google’s getting involved —undercutting their own argument.

bb88 8y ago

The history of technology and the military in the US is more complex than the myopic "Military is Bad" style of arguments that have been vogue as of late. Preventing the US military from using that technology doesn't stop China or Russia from upgrading their systems to use it.

posix_me_less 8y ago
> "The history of technology and the military in the US is more complex than the myopic "Military is Bad" style of arguments that have been vogue as of late." It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. People mostly know it is important to have a military. But that does not mean supporting all its current activities. > "Preventing the US military from using that technology doesn't stop China or Russia from upgrading their systems to use it." I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument. The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. One can go as far as say that the faster the U.S. develops it, the faster the Russians and Chinese will have it. The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc.
- bb88 8y ago
  > It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. You may be right, but that's an issue with the white house administration and those telling the military what to do, not with the military itself. It has always seemed to me that if you never liked what the military was doing, it was a political disgreement, not an issue with the military itself. > I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument. > The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. It seems to me that wanting military superiority (or equality in some cases) is enough of a reason to pursue new weapon systems, and that will happen regardless of whether or not the US has the technology. Einstein sent a letter to the US president in 1939, and then two more in 1940 to warn the US of upcoming technological advances and urged the US to start a nuclear weapons program. I mention this, because we developed nuclear weapons out of fear that someone else would do it, and we needed a deterrent. And that was obvious to people like Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_... > The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc. That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty.

RickJWagner 8y ago

I respect the workers for walking away. If they are committed pacifists, then more power to them. As for me, I'm a proud military veteran. I believe a strong US military helps make the world a better and safer place. So I'd keep that job and work it as best as I could. Different strokes for different folks. Life's too short to hate people who think differently.

posix_me_less 8y ago
Yours is an interesting opinion - what makes you 'believe a strong US military helps make the world a better and safer place'? Did you think about the probabilities that this strong military will be misused to do the opposite?