4 ms·

Often I hear about people who refuse some contract because of ethical reserves. But, we should have more people with ethical sensibility working on military pro

Often I hear about people who refuse some contract because of ethical reserves. But, we should have more people with ethical sensibility working on military projects, not less. If the only people working on military projects are sociopaths, what future are we building?

s_kilk 8y ago
This presumes that the people with ethical sensibilities have any power to change the structure of the MIC from the inside. On the contrary, I'd say a fundamentally rotten institution can't be reformed by a few good apples joining up to help turn civilians into red streaks on the ground.
- cpuguy83 8y ago
  I don't know, this worked out pretty well for the death star situation.
- Chardok 8y ago
  Hell, even the "head of Stanford University’s A.I. lab and chief scientist for A.I. at Google Cloud, one of the search giant’s most promising enterprises" who literally said “I believe in human-centered AI to benefit people in positive and benevolent ways. It is deeply against my principles to work on any project that I think is to weaponize AI.” had little to no effect on Googles direction towards military applications. She couldn't even get a publicized email out. The article certainly supports your theory.
dev_north_east 8y ago
I would never ever work on anything for the military or that is designed to hurt human beings. That being so, I wouldn't describe those engineers that do as sociopaths.
- scruple 8y ago
  > I would never ever work on anything for the military or that is designed to hurt human beings. That being so, I wouldn't describe those engineers that do as sociopaths. It seems that, essentially, you're describing conscientious objection. edit/ Removed some words that weren't adding value.
- Wohlf 8y ago
  I have bad news for you then, because every military in the world uses plenty of resources developed in the private sector and academia.
  - dev_north_east 8y ago
    I've heard this again and again through my career as though it's some sort of gotcha. I think most people understand the difference between developing (for example) a communications client which among its future customers, may include a military, and actively working (for example) the targeting system of a predator drone.
SuoDuanDao 8y ago
I think an important part of that calculus though is that the ethical people on these projects are willing to walk away if their ethical concerns aren't met - which looks to be what happened at AlphaBet.
more_corn 8y ago
There are no ethical people only ethical or unethical actions. When an ordinarily ethical person builds a gun it's still a gun. Once it has been created, the creator give up control. (That's the last stage in the act of creation). The person who creates a weapon is not the same person who decides to use the weapon. Smart people know better than to use a terrible weapon, but that's not how we decide who gets to use weapons. The decision goes to those with power not those best suited to make the decision. Power accumulates with people most willing to misuse power. Therefore smart people have an obligation to not work on weapons. And the more terrible the weapon the stronger the obligation not to create it. AI targeted drone systems are terrible. Even if there's a human in the loop for now. We cannot advance that branch of weaponry. It will only fuel an arms race and hasten the arrival of a terrible future.
HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
It's an interesting question. I used to have a pacifist friend who worked for a local defense contractor. I asked her about the apparent conflict of interest and her answer what that she hadn't quite figured it out, but she hoped that her presence there at least balanced out some of the rampant jingoism.

s_kilk 8y ago

This presumes that the people with ethical sensibilities have any power to change the structure of the MIC from the inside. On the contrary, I'd say a fundamentally rotten institution can't be reformed by a few good apples joining up to help turn civilians into red streaks on the ground.

cpuguy83 8y ago
I don't know, this worked out pretty well for the death star situation.
Chardok 8y ago
Hell, even the "head of Stanford University’s A.I. lab and chief scientist for A.I. at Google Cloud, one of the search giant’s most promising enterprises" who literally said “I believe in human-centered AI to benefit people in positive and benevolent ways. It is deeply against my principles to work on any project that I think is to weaponize AI.” had little to no effect on Googles direction towards military applications. She couldn't even get a publicized email out. The article certainly supports your theory.

dev_north_east 8y ago

I would never ever work on anything for the military or that is designed to hurt human beings. That being so, I wouldn't describe those engineers that do as sociopaths.

scruple 8y ago
> I would never ever work on anything for the military or that is designed to hurt human beings. That being so, I wouldn't describe those engineers that do as sociopaths. It seems that, essentially, you're describing conscientious objection. edit/ Removed some words that weren't adding value.
Wohlf 8y ago
I have bad news for you then, because every military in the world uses plenty of resources developed in the private sector and academia.
- dev_north_east 8y ago
  I've heard this again and again through my career as though it's some sort of gotcha. I think most people understand the difference between developing (for example) a communications client which among its future customers, may include a military, and actively working (for example) the targeting system of a predator drone.

SuoDuanDao 8y ago

I think an important part of that calculus though is that the ethical people on these projects are willing to walk away if their ethical concerns aren't met - which looks to be what happened at AlphaBet.

more_corn 8y ago

There are no ethical people only ethical or unethical actions. When an ordinarily ethical person builds a gun it's still a gun. Once it has been created, the creator give up control. (That's the last stage in the act of creation). The person who creates a weapon is not the same person who decides to use the weapon. Smart people know better than to use a terrible weapon, but that's not how we decide who gets to use weapons. The decision goes to those with power not those best suited to make the decision. Power accumulates with people most willing to misuse power. Therefore smart people have an obligation to not work on weapons. And the more terrible the weapon the stronger the obligation not to create it. AI targeted drone systems are terrible. Even if there's a human in the loop for now. We cannot advance that branch of weaponry. It will only fuel an arms race and hasten the arrival of a terrible future.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago

It's an interesting question. I used to have a pacifist friend who worked for a local defense contractor. I asked her about the apparent conflict of interest and her answer what that she hadn't quite figured it out, but she hoped that her presence there at least balanced out some of the rampant jingoism.