7 ms·

I once worked for a large industrial group in Europe. The kind that has a bit of a piece of every little pie there is - military, transportation, etc. I was p

by mmjaa 8y ago

I once worked for a large industrial group in Europe. The kind that has a bit of a piece of every little pie there is - military, transportation, etc. I was pretty happy working there .. until I got a demo from the 'defence' group. They demonstrated the willingness to push the company's technology into heinous, heinous territory. The kind of thing where a drone would be able to follow a single person in a crowd, and target them for execution - unguided, of course. I quit the next day. Those of us who make technology, need to be very sure we see that it is not used destructively against the human species. The responsibility is very, very high. And, the danger is extreme. These people were revelling in the fact that they could develop targeted assassination drones and sell them to any country in the world. Heinous.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
I can beat you to death with a hammer or stab you to death with a knife. Should we not build hammers and knives? Should hammers and knives be subject to KYC laws? Sure you can argue that it's different because those are things the common man can get whereas on the state can afford surveillance dragnets and drones but it wasn't that long ago that only the state could afford computers. Edit: Apparently I struck a nerve. Technology transfers between military and civilian application all the time. Propeller technology that helped submarines that are now obsolete stay quiet is fine tuned in a different manner to yield more environmentally friendly watercraft. A drone that can disperse insecticides on only the crops that need it can deliver chemical weapons with some slightly different fine tuning. An 1984 (or 2018 UK if you like) surveillance and law enforcement system could be used to track down corruption in government, suppressing dissidents, identifying insider trading, identifying human tracking, etc. It all depends on who's using it. (I personally don't trust any government to properly wield that kind of power.) The technology doesn't care. It's all how you use it.
- kevindqc 8y ago
  Are hammers and knives designed and bought to kill people?
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Some times yes there are companies that make bladed weapons for the military both for ceremonial and actual use. And war hammers have a military context going back centuries and diy versions where used in trench warfare.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Are advertising profiles designed and bought so that they state can oppress dissidents?
- fredley 8y ago
  The difference is between creating a hammer, and creating a hammer specifically for the purpose of efficiently killing humans.
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    You mean, like a gun?
- anthony_romeo 8y ago
  If you were to try and kill me with a knife, your life is on the line as well. If you try to kill me with a drone, your risk is only the money and time spent on the drone. There is quite a difference.
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    I'm unclear as to what the moral difference is. It's more moral to kill someone if they can fight back? Then why are we giving our soldiers tanks? Guns? Fighter jets? Knives? Why not just send them in with their fists. This line of reasoning has no rational basis.
    - jowiar 8y ago
      The difference is the cost to yourself, or people you care about, when you want someone dead. Popular sentiment turned against the Vietnam war in the US because Americans were coming home dead, not because of the Vietnamese that we were killing. When we eliminate the cost of war, we make it more likely to enter one, and stay in one.
      - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
        Yeah, the American populace might not care, but the victims do care, and how upset they are made directly affects all other efforts in that area. Peacemaking and nationbuilding only gets more difficult the more people that have lost family members to the invaders. If we'd gone into Baghdad WWII style, carpet bombing and all that, we'd probably still be fighting a significant war in Iraq. Or the country would be depopulated. Presumably the appearance of ISIS was largely a reaction to western actions in the region, and its initial strength was proportional to the outrage that could be drummed up. Sure, there are probably asinine military commanders that don't account for this, but it isn't the universal rule.
tormeh 8y ago
>and sell them to any country in the world This is never true. No government will allow its companies (and in this context that's how it's seen) to sell weapons to countries they don't approve of. That said, apparently the defense industry is often irresponsible at best.
- davesque 8y ago
  It would be like Pandora's box, no? We didn't want North Korea to get nukes either.
- thirduncle 8y ago
  No government will allow its companies (and in this context that's how it's seen) to sell weapons to countries they don't approve of. What the poster meant was "just about any country" in the world. Which we've seen happen time and time again - the restrictions may be nominally in place (for a while), but eventually they get selectively lifted, and/or the companies find a way to circumvent them. At times (and not at all surprisingly) with the assistance of certain government agencies chartered with the purpose of not only enacting precisely this kind of subterfuge - but perfecting it as an art.
- jcbrand 8y ago
  Doesn't really matter that much, AFAIK all (most?) western countries sell to Saudi Arabia for instance.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  Even if a firm in country A can sell only to group of countries X, another firm in country B might be able to sell to group of countries Y. All you really need is a few companies with overlapping markets to eventually bring such tech to the entire world.
mtgx 8y ago
Google leaders are either very naive and actually think the Pentagon wouldn't repurpose their tech for killing people, or they know exactly that this is how it will used but they agreed to sell it anyway, because money. I'm much more inclined to believe it's the latter.
walshemj 8y ago
You mean like those "fertilizer plants" that a certain European company sold to sadam ?
- astrodust 8y ago
  There's an extraordinarily fine line between agricultural fertilizers and industrial explosives.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    I was thinking more along the lines of chemical weapons.
    - astrodust 8y ago
      Same thing. Chlorine gas is commonly used in many industrial processes, but it's also a highly toxic chemical that has been used (and banned!) in warfare. The biggest problem is so-called "dual use" chemicals and compounds where there are legitimate military and non-military uses. You can build extremely dangerous explosives from chemicals found on the shelf at a drug store, but that doesn't mean that company is in the business of selling explosives.
sametmax 8y ago
That's the thing isn't it ? They can't do anything alone. It always amazes me that those big entities exist, because they require such a huge highly educated and skilled human power. What are all those genius at the NSA thinking ? I can't imagine somebody smart enough to work here is not smart enough to understand the consequences of working there. So why are they not quitting ? Social pressure and money are part of the equation, certainly. I remember when I turned down a Google interview, my close circle though it was weird that I did that, even more for ethical reason. Having the best toys, budgets and projects certainly helps as well. But still, I wonder.
- iblo66 8y ago
  >So why are they not quitting ? Because not everybody thinks the way you do. That's why we have elections.
- cmrdporcupine 8y ago
  Arguably the majority supports the ideological foundations, aims, and methods of the institutions you are speaking of. In particular the military and intelligence institutions. If they didn't, they would have been removed by vote or force some time ago. Frankly the broad majority of people in the US benefit materially in some way from their existence in ways that they might not even be fully aware of. I am not arguing this is a good thing, but I think it's a reality. Military power abroad means wealth accumulation at home.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    > Frankly the broad majority of people in the US benefit materially in some way from their existence in ways that they might not even be fully aware of. No argument here, having a strong bully in the room is good for you when he is on your side.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    Interesting. I have absolutely zero ethical concerns with Google building a drone which can more accurately target someone. I'm also perfectly fine with US government using those drones to kill bad guys. Now if they use it to kill good guys, then it's a problem that needs to be solved.
everdev 8y ago
I applaud your morality. In terms of moving the needle towards a more moral world, do you think employee resignations have a positive effect or does it create a less moral survivor bias where the people who are left have fewer limits or concerns? I'm sure disclosure would be illegal per your employee contract, but are there any other steps concerned employees can take?
- jotm 8y ago
  Yeah, pretty sure it's a good thing for those companies/projects. Someone who could've been sabotaging their work just quit right away, so they can get someone who will actually like working there. It's not like the employee takes away funding or resources (well, unless they're a genius/influencer, but then again, a good enough motivated replacement is fine).
brolover 8y ago
I'm not surprised. After finishing my degree, I went to optimize a couple of production lines. I didn't get much detail and thought it was for plastic/glass bottles (filling liquids and moving them around - many tiny grabbers, simple movement, not that wide tracks). After about 2 months of work, and after the production line got parallelized and speed drastically increased I went to see it work. What I saw shocked me and I immediatelly quit. It was a production line for handling of female and male young and grown chicks. Debeaking, throat slitting. I was absolutely shocked how none of the superiors told me exactly which product was being handled. After seeing the horrific product of my work I quit. Since then, I'm not surprised, given what horrors we do to living animals, that we are ready to do them to each other. I doubted the meaning of my work at university, what did I do? Spend 4 years at college to create killing machines? I didn't think I'd ever do that.
- nojvek 8y ago
  > Since then, I'm not surprised, given what horrors we do to living animals, that we are ready to do them to each other. I sometimes think this is why we don’t see any intelligent civilizations out there. Intelligence gives rise to deceitfulness and eventually, one selfish actor can bring down an entire civilization intentionally or unintentionally since the weapons get so powerful.
c3534l 8y ago
Is that really worse than bombing a vague area, hoping it has a lot of targets or the people you're after?

by mmjaa 8y ago

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

I can beat you to death with a hammer or stab you to death with a knife. Should we not build hammers and knives? Should hammers and knives be subject to KYC laws? Sure you can argue that it's different because those are things the common man can get whereas on the state can afford surveillance dragnets and drones but it wasn't that long ago that only the state could afford computers. Edit: Apparently I struck a nerve. Technology transfers between military and civilian application all the time. Propeller technology that helped submarines that are now obsolete stay quiet is fine tuned in a different manner to yield more environmentally friendly watercraft. A drone that can disperse insecticides on only the crops that need it can deliver chemical weapons with some slightly different fine tuning. An 1984 (or 2018 UK if you like) surveillance and law enforcement system could be used to track down corruption in government, suppressing dissidents, identifying insider trading, identifying human tracking, etc. It all depends on who's using it. (I personally don't trust any government to properly wield that kind of power.) The technology doesn't care. It's all how you use it.

kevindqc 8y ago
Are hammers and knives designed and bought to kill people?
- walshemj 8y ago
  Some times yes there are companies that make bladed weapons for the military both for ceremonial and actual use. And war hammers have a military context going back centuries and diy versions where used in trench warfare.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Are advertising profiles designed and bought so that they state can oppress dissidents?
fredley 8y ago
The difference is between creating a hammer, and creating a hammer specifically for the purpose of efficiently killing humans.
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  You mean, like a gun?
anthony_romeo 8y ago
If you were to try and kill me with a knife, your life is on the line as well. If you try to kill me with a drone, your risk is only the money and time spent on the drone. There is quite a difference.
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  I'm unclear as to what the moral difference is. It's more moral to kill someone if they can fight back? Then why are we giving our soldiers tanks? Guns? Fighter jets? Knives? Why not just send them in with their fists. This line of reasoning has no rational basis.
  - jowiar 8y ago
    The difference is the cost to yourself, or people you care about, when you want someone dead. Popular sentiment turned against the Vietnam war in the US because Americans were coming home dead, not because of the Vietnamese that we were killing. When we eliminate the cost of war, we make it more likely to enter one, and stay in one.
    - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
      Yeah, the American populace might not care, but the victims do care, and how upset they are made directly affects all other efforts in that area. Peacemaking and nationbuilding only gets more difficult the more people that have lost family members to the invaders. If we'd gone into Baghdad WWII style, carpet bombing and all that, we'd probably still be fighting a significant war in Iraq. Or the country would be depopulated. Presumably the appearance of ISIS was largely a reaction to western actions in the region, and its initial strength was proportional to the outrage that could be drummed up. Sure, there are probably asinine military commanders that don't account for this, but it isn't the universal rule.

tormeh 8y ago

>and sell them to any country in the world This is never true. No government will allow its companies (and in this context that's how it's seen) to sell weapons to countries they don't approve of. That said, apparently the defense industry is often irresponsible at best.

davesque 8y ago
It would be like Pandora's box, no? We didn't want North Korea to get nukes either.
thirduncle 8y ago
No government will allow its companies (and in this context that's how it's seen) to sell weapons to countries they don't approve of. What the poster meant was "just about any country" in the world. Which we've seen happen time and time again - the restrictions may be nominally in place (for a while), but eventually they get selectively lifted, and/or the companies find a way to circumvent them. At times (and not at all surprisingly) with the assistance of certain government agencies chartered with the purpose of not only enacting precisely this kind of subterfuge - but perfecting it as an art.
jcbrand 8y ago
Doesn't really matter that much, AFAIK all (most?) western countries sell to Saudi Arabia for instance.
Mediterraneo10 8y ago
Even if a firm in country A can sell only to group of countries X, another firm in country B might be able to sell to group of countries Y. All you really need is a few companies with overlapping markets to eventually bring such tech to the entire world.

mtgx 8y ago

Google leaders are either very naive and actually think the Pentagon wouldn't repurpose their tech for killing people, or they know exactly that this is how it will used but they agreed to sell it anyway, because money. I'm much more inclined to believe it's the latter.

walshemj 8y ago

You mean like those "fertilizer plants" that a certain European company sold to sadam ?

astrodust 8y ago
There's an extraordinarily fine line between agricultural fertilizers and industrial explosives.
- walshemj 8y ago
  I was thinking more along the lines of chemical weapons.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    Same thing. Chlorine gas is commonly used in many industrial processes, but it's also a highly toxic chemical that has been used (and banned!) in warfare. The biggest problem is so-called "dual use" chemicals and compounds where there are legitimate military and non-military uses. You can build extremely dangerous explosives from chemicals found on the shelf at a drug store, but that doesn't mean that company is in the business of selling explosives.

sametmax 8y ago

That's the thing isn't it ? They can't do anything alone. It always amazes me that those big entities exist, because they require such a huge highly educated and skilled human power. What are all those genius at the NSA thinking ? I can't imagine somebody smart enough to work here is not smart enough to understand the consequences of working there. So why are they not quitting ? Social pressure and money are part of the equation, certainly. I remember when I turned down a Google interview, my close circle though it was weird that I did that, even more for ethical reason. Having the best toys, budgets and projects certainly helps as well. But still, I wonder.

iblo66 8y ago
>So why are they not quitting ? Because not everybody thinks the way you do. That's why we have elections.
cmrdporcupine 8y ago
Arguably the majority supports the ideological foundations, aims, and methods of the institutions you are speaking of. In particular the military and intelligence institutions. If they didn't, they would have been removed by vote or force some time ago. Frankly the broad majority of people in the US benefit materially in some way from their existence in ways that they might not even be fully aware of. I am not arguing this is a good thing, but I think it's a reality. Military power abroad means wealth accumulation at home.
- sametmax 8y ago
  > Frankly the broad majority of people in the US benefit materially in some way from their existence in ways that they might not even be fully aware of. No argument here, having a strong bully in the room is good for you when he is on your side.
- p1esk 8y ago
  Interesting. I have absolutely zero ethical concerns with Google building a drone which can more accurately target someone. I'm also perfectly fine with US government using those drones to kill bad guys. Now if they use it to kill good guys, then it's a problem that needs to be solved.

everdev 8y ago

I applaud your morality. In terms of moving the needle towards a more moral world, do you think employee resignations have a positive effect or does it create a less moral survivor bias where the people who are left have fewer limits or concerns? I'm sure disclosure would be illegal per your employee contract, but are there any other steps concerned employees can take?

jotm 8y ago
Yeah, pretty sure it's a good thing for those companies/projects. Someone who could've been sabotaging their work just quit right away, so they can get someone who will actually like working there. It's not like the employee takes away funding or resources (well, unless they're a genius/influencer, but then again, a good enough motivated replacement is fine).

brolover 8y ago

I'm not surprised. After finishing my degree, I went to optimize a couple of production lines. I didn't get much detail and thought it was for plastic/glass bottles (filling liquids and moving them around - many tiny grabbers, simple movement, not that wide tracks). After about 2 months of work, and after the production line got parallelized and speed drastically increased I went to see it work. What I saw shocked me and I immediatelly quit. It was a production line for handling of female and male young and grown chicks. Debeaking, throat slitting. I was absolutely shocked how none of the superiors told me exactly which product was being handled. After seeing the horrific product of my work I quit. Since then, I'm not surprised, given what horrors we do to living animals, that we are ready to do them to each other. I doubted the meaning of my work at university, what did I do? Spend 4 years at college to create killing machines? I didn't think I'd ever do that.

nojvek 8y ago
> Since then, I'm not surprised, given what horrors we do to living animals, that we are ready to do them to each other. I sometimes think this is why we don’t see any intelligent civilizations out there. Intelligence gives rise to deceitfulness and eventually, one selfish actor can bring down an entire civilization intentionally or unintentionally since the weapons get so powerful.

c3534l 8y ago

Is that really worse than bombing a vague area, hoping it has a lot of targets or the people you're after?