5 ms·

I guess that depends on whether you view either profit or war as intrinsically evil.

kibwen 8y ago
It's whether one views the intersection of profit and war as intrinsically evil, which for most people is a resounding yes. Humans are already good enough at killing and causing misery for each other without adding additional economic incentives into the mix.
- jonnybgood 8y ago
  But what if the US military wants to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage as much as possible and wants technology developed to do so?
  - wavefunction 8y ago
    We don't know that Google will accomplish those goals.
    - jonnybgood 8y ago
      Well I think that's what the Air Force wants to find out.
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    The obvious way to reach the goal of minimize civilian casualities is to abstain from risky strikes and use smaller yield weapons. The us military wants technology that justifies them not making more conservative choices, and I don’t see any moral justification for that. Drones are useful for cheaply eliminating risk to one actor, thus allowing more risky behaviour to the side that has them. But being a cheap risk mitigator is also all they are, they bring no new strategic capability, as evidenced by how easily their use was ramped up and down, so their main effect, the one that could provide some moral justification, is making war cheaper.
  - randcraw 8y ago
    Unfortunately I'm not aware that minimization of civilian casualties is a US military objective. Until I hear that it is, I will assume it is not, since it's much easier to achieve your mission of killing bad guys if you're also willing to kill good guys. You get more rewards for killing more bad guys, not saving more good guys. Unfortunately that's how militaries and governments work.
    - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
      Unfortunately I'm not aware that minimization of civilian casualties is a US military objective. Not to put too fine of a point on it but even a basic search on the topic would yield a ton of official policy doing exactly that. There is explicit guidance and long history of minimizing civilian casualties as a goal within the DoD, and such guidance is codified in multiple legal documents under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Rules of Engagement and international treaties. To wit: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/01/executive-order-united-states-policy-pre-and-post-strike-measures https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/0... https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/attp/attp3-37-31.pdf https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/... This is also taught as a basic tenet in introductory courses for new Military Officers. One example here: https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936%20Law%20of%20War%20and%20Rules%20Of%20Engagement.pdf https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936...
      - randcraw 8y ago
        A large set of such references are to be expected, of course. When a civilized people undertake killing on a large scale, you don't want others to think you act without justification. So you write serious administrative documents claiming your government actions to be justified and your military claims to minimize collateral damage. But are such claims really true? Does the part of the military chain of command that actually does the killing take those claims to heart, as much as pentagon spokesmen do? Do the superiors of lieutenants and privates hold them to that standard, even when the laws of conduct become unenforceable by collateral victims, as in drone strikes? In several US wars, such claim were not taken to heart. Vietnam became infamous in US history as lacking a sound casus belli, just as the 2003 Iraq War has. In messy wars like these, one of the principal casualties is often the enforcement of the rules of war, especially when it comes to laws of conduct that are still in the course of being written, such as the proper use of drones or AI. This lack of enforcement becomes especially fraught when novel weaponry and its use is governed not by the military under its code of conduct, but by the CIA (who now runs most drone snipery), which AFAIK lacks an equivalent martial code of conduct.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  But you’re describing some commercial inventive to go to war, which is very different from selling goods and services to the military.
  - rickycook 8y ago
    those 2 things are pretty heavily correlated. guns and ammo, military rations manufacturers, and yes creators of technology that support military operations have a huge economic incentive for war the more war you create, the larger the military, and get larger their ability to spent on “protection” and “defence” *edit: which is certainly offset pretty substantially by the hit to the countries GDP, because yknow... war is expensive!
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      There is no logic to your argument here at all. You’re saying that every company that supplies anything to the military is automatically wielding an unethical influence to create war on false pretences. I think you can certainly find examples where commercial entities have played a suspicious role in that respect, but to say that simply by supplying goods or services to the military you are war mongering is completely devoid of logic.
      - krageon 8y ago
        He is saying that any company that supplies to a military has an economic incentive to make sure war happens. Seeing as they profit from the size of the military, that's not exactly far-fetched.
        AmericanChopper 8y ago
        He’s making an enormous and baseless jump that any company that supplies the military must also be involved corruption and unethical war mongering. Just because an economic insentive exists, doesn’t mean people will exploit it. That’s just as senseless as saying that I’m probably a drug dealer because there’s an economic insentive for me to be. Aside from the complete lack of logic in this claim, it also doesn’t even make sense, since the military gets a budget every year, regardless of whether there’s a war to fight.
swampthinker 8y ago
War will always be evil, it's usually just about whether it is a necessary evil.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  I think that’s a very oversimplified opinion. Depending on the alternative, war can certainly be the moral decision. I don’t think you’d find many would who would describe The Unions war on slavery as Evil.
  - wavefunction 8y ago
    It wasn't a war on Slavery though, as Lincoln only took the extraordinary step of releasing the Emancipation Proclamation late in the war.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      That’s a semantic argument. The point is that any of us could come up with an example where the decision to go to war, either offensively or defensively, is clearly not evil.
    - will4274 8y ago
      Yes, it was. South Carolina was the first state to secede; South Carolina cited slavery in their declaration of secession; the war began with secession or immediately following and because of secession. The civil war was fought over slavery.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    The Union didn't fight a war on slavery (in fact, it included slave states). The Confederacy fought for slavery, the Union fought for, well, union.
mtgx 8y ago
Was IBM's providing of tech to the Nazis to kill Jewish people more effectively neutral or intrinsically evil? I try to avoid comparisons to the Nazis (even though many more people seem to be doing it these days with Trump in power), but isn't Google basically providing the government the technology to more effectively kill people in the Middle East, too? That's what it is at the end of the day, isn't it? History will remember Google for this - especially when its technology will be used for some horrifying stuff in the future (and it will be). Right now we haven't even seen its true consequences yet, so it's easy for some to dismiss it as no big deal.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  This isn’t a well reasoned position at all. You can’t summarily declare that all wars or actions taken by the military are morally equivalent to an ethnoreligios genocide.
  - John_KZ 8y ago
    Is there another use for these drones right now? Because all I've seen is pretty close to "ethnoreligious genocide". Many people straightforwardly advocate for it. Can you really pretend that you're developing "neutral" weapons technology in this climate?
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      Appealing to mindless outrage is not a rational argument. Please list all of the genocides that the USA’s drone program has participated in. If anything, it seems this google technology would reduce the number of civilian casualties.

It's whether one views the intersection of profit and war as intrinsically evil, which for most people is a resounding yes. Humans are already good enough at killing and causing misery for each other without adding additional economic incentives into the mix.

jonnybgood 8y ago
But what if the US military wants to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage as much as possible and wants technology developed to do so?
- wavefunction 8y ago
  We don't know that Google will accomplish those goals.
  - jonnybgood 8y ago
    Well I think that's what the Air Force wants to find out.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  The obvious way to reach the goal of minimize civilian casualities is to abstain from risky strikes and use smaller yield weapons. The us military wants technology that justifies them not making more conservative choices, and I don’t see any moral justification for that. Drones are useful for cheaply eliminating risk to one actor, thus allowing more risky behaviour to the side that has them. But being a cheap risk mitigator is also all they are, they bring no new strategic capability, as evidenced by how easily their use was ramped up and down, so their main effect, the one that could provide some moral justification, is making war cheaper.
- randcraw 8y ago
  Unfortunately I'm not aware that minimization of civilian casualties is a US military objective. Until I hear that it is, I will assume it is not, since it's much easier to achieve your mission of killing bad guys if you're also willing to kill good guys. You get more rewards for killing more bad guys, not saving more good guys. Unfortunately that's how militaries and governments work.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    Unfortunately I'm not aware that minimization of civilian casualties is a US military objective. Not to put too fine of a point on it but even a basic search on the topic would yield a ton of official policy doing exactly that. There is explicit guidance and long history of minimizing civilian casualties as a goal within the DoD, and such guidance is codified in multiple legal documents under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Rules of Engagement and international treaties. To wit: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/01/executive-order-united-states-policy-pre-and-post-strike-measures https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/0... https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/attp/attp3-37-31.pdf https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/... This is also taught as a basic tenet in introductory courses for new Military Officers. One example here: https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936%20Law%20of%20War%20and%20Rules%20Of%20Engagement.pdf https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936...
    - randcraw 8y ago
      A large set of such references are to be expected, of course. When a civilized people undertake killing on a large scale, you don't want others to think you act without justification. So you write serious administrative documents claiming your government actions to be justified and your military claims to minimize collateral damage. But are such claims really true? Does the part of the military chain of command that actually does the killing take those claims to heart, as much as pentagon spokesmen do? Do the superiors of lieutenants and privates hold them to that standard, even when the laws of conduct become unenforceable by collateral victims, as in drone strikes? In several US wars, such claim were not taken to heart. Vietnam became infamous in US history as lacking a sound casus belli, just as the 2003 Iraq War has. In messy wars like these, one of the principal casualties is often the enforcement of the rules of war, especially when it comes to laws of conduct that are still in the course of being written, such as the proper use of drones or AI. This lack of enforcement becomes especially fraught when novel weaponry and its use is governed not by the military under its code of conduct, but by the CIA (who now runs most drone snipery), which AFAIK lacks an equivalent martial code of conduct.
AmericanChopper 8y ago
But you’re describing some commercial inventive to go to war, which is very different from selling goods and services to the military.
- rickycook 8y ago
  those 2 things are pretty heavily correlated. guns and ammo, military rations manufacturers, and yes creators of technology that support military operations have a huge economic incentive for war the more war you create, the larger the military, and get larger their ability to spent on “protection” and “defence” *edit: which is certainly offset pretty substantially by the hit to the countries GDP, because yknow... war is expensive!
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    There is no logic to your argument here at all. You’re saying that every company that supplies anything to the military is automatically wielding an unethical influence to create war on false pretences. I think you can certainly find examples where commercial entities have played a suspicious role in that respect, but to say that simply by supplying goods or services to the military you are war mongering is completely devoid of logic.
    - krageon 8y ago
      He is saying that any company that supplies to a military has an economic incentive to make sure war happens. Seeing as they profit from the size of the military, that's not exactly far-fetched.
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        He’s making an enormous and baseless jump that any company that supplies the military must also be involved corruption and unethical war mongering. Just because an economic insentive exists, doesn’t mean people will exploit it. That’s just as senseless as saying that I’m probably a drug dealer because there’s an economic insentive for me to be. Aside from the complete lack of logic in this claim, it also doesn’t even make sense, since the military gets a budget every year, regardless of whether there’s a war to fight.

swampthinker 8y ago

War will always be evil, it's usually just about whether it is a necessary evil.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
I think that’s a very oversimplified opinion. Depending on the alternative, war can certainly be the moral decision. I don’t think you’d find many would who would describe The Unions war on slavery as Evil.
- wavefunction 8y ago
  It wasn't a war on Slavery though, as Lincoln only took the extraordinary step of releasing the Emancipation Proclamation late in the war.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    That’s a semantic argument. The point is that any of us could come up with an example where the decision to go to war, either offensively or defensively, is clearly not evil.
  - will4274 8y ago
    Yes, it was. South Carolina was the first state to secede; South Carolina cited slavery in their declaration of secession; the war began with secession or immediately following and because of secession. The civil war was fought over slavery.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  The Union didn't fight a war on slavery (in fact, it included slave states). The Confederacy fought for slavery, the Union fought for, well, union.

mtgx 8y ago

Was IBM's providing of tech to the Nazis to kill Jewish people more effectively neutral or intrinsically evil? I try to avoid comparisons to the Nazis (even though many more people seem to be doing it these days with Trump in power), but isn't Google basically providing the government the technology to more effectively kill people in the Middle East, too? That's what it is at the end of the day, isn't it? History will remember Google for this - especially when its technology will be used for some horrifying stuff in the future (and it will be). Right now we haven't even seen its true consequences yet, so it's easy for some to dismiss it as no big deal.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
This isn’t a well reasoned position at all. You can’t summarily declare that all wars or actions taken by the military are morally equivalent to an ethnoreligios genocide.
- John_KZ 8y ago
  Is there another use for these drones right now? Because all I've seen is pretty close to "ethnoreligious genocide". Many people straightforwardly advocate for it. Can you really pretend that you're developing "neutral" weapons technology in this climate?
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    Appealing to mindless outrage is not a rational argument. Please list all of the genocides that the USA’s drone program has participated in. If anything, it seems this google technology would reduce the number of civilian casualties.