6 ms·

Or accept the reality that we live in a world that feels the need to kill people. I think it would be swell to not need a military but the reality is that we do

Or accept the reality that we live in a world that feels the need to kill people. I think it would be swell to not need a military but the reality is that we do. If you have qualms about working for Google as a defense contractor, consider the implications of living in the US (or in all likelihood wherever you happen to reside). Can you justify paying your taxes? Can you justify voting for one of a handful of candidates for federal government, all of whom are likely to support some form of military action or other? If a hostile foreign power was to invade your country, what would you want the response to be? To what ends and what efforts should we support the military? There are many ethically questionable choices we take for granted, especially those of us that live in the West. Everything we consume has a taint of human exploitation, environmental damage, contributes to oppressive regimes that murder people, etc. Where does it stop? On the other hand, it sounds like the work Google was doing here was to improve the relative safety of autonomous drone strikes. Oh, but if these strikes remained risky and unreliable, we wouldn’t do them! Believe me, there are a dozen other large defense contractors out there that will implement this if Google doesn’t, so it’s not like it’s a binary proposition. My point is, working for Google is not the right target on which to pin arguments for or against the ethics of autonomous drone strikes.

fakescience 8y ago
Yes, the arguments you outline would also be ways to reduce cognitive dissonance as well ("if we didn't do it, others would"). I don't think Google would stop all wars by not contributing to this project. But Google, and the employees who work at Google, has power - a kind of power that's very, very different from my power as an individual when paying taxes or when voting for a federal employee (behaviors that create dissonance for me because they contribute to the war machine). I think that power can, and should, be used to prevent wars - not to make them "cleaner". The small attempt at organizing protests made by some employees at the company was a good step, but the only one I have heard of (maybe there have been others?) and I want the people who have the most access to power to start thinking about what they are doing and trying to make more positive changes. Consume less. Be more mindful of environmental damage. Speak out against the oppressive regimes that help murder people.
- flatline 8y ago
  I basically agree with the last points. As to the drone strikes, I believe there is potential there for decent things. Who is to say these would not grant the power to stop a war by executing key individuals in a scenario where a manned strike would be prohibitive? And yet there is a clear moral hazard of facilitating murder. I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. I choose not to work on projects like that but I have trouble condemning some of these things out of hand.
  - fakescience 8y ago
    Yeah, I think we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs about the effectiveness of violence (i.e. assassination via drones) to promote world peace. Hard to know what wars have been prevented via assassination, but if you might look into all the evidence of violence continuing or escalating after assassinations (how many "heads" of ISIS have been killed in drone strikes? and check out all the US activity in Latin America...). But that discussion goes beyond the graveyard of a hacker news comments section. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful responses.
  - pizza234 8y ago
    > I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. Oh, there is actually a very clearcut line for this; it's coincisively described by the following headline: "If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We'd Ground Our Fleet"[⁰] [⁰] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-drone-strike-hit-an-american-wedding-wed-ground-our-fleet/282373/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-dr...
    - Quarrelsome 8y ago
      I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Also Middle Eastern weddings can occasionally be mis-interpreted as militant given the propensity for arms fire in celebration. If a drone strike hit an American wedding they would ground their _home_ fleet. Its a key difference. The information for an electorate of a democratic state to make more empathetic choices are available its just a question of whether: * The electorate are wilfully ignorant of foreign suffering (as its tortuous to read) * The electorate are kept ignorant intentionally or unintentionally as a product of the conflict for eye balls between media institutions. * The electorate are not able to make impactful choices due to the type of democracy they have. I'd argue its a bit of every one of those things. I prefer to measure things in outcomes and I would posit the major difference in supplying or not supplying arms to a conflict is merely the level of guilt from the origin of supply. People are still going to die be it by drone, missile, mortar, ak-47 or spear. We could argue that arms sales can enable conflict by giving one side an apparent advantage that they choose to capitalise on but that's a messy problem to investigate. Surely to wish to capitalise means that someone has already drawn the lines and is considering hostilities. What makes a war? The lines being drawn or the weapons or a combination of many factors multiplied over time and key events or decisions made by actors on either side? One may decide to war without advantage, one may choose not to war with advantage. So I don't think its as clear cut as weapon sales == war.
paganel 8y ago
> Or accept the reality that we live in a world that feels the need to kill people. We dream day and night about inventing self-driving cars and about reaching Mars (which are both nice things but without which I can easily live) but we've given up on trying to stop killing each other, and worse of all, we regard it as futile. It hasn't always been like that, for example just look at the Catholic Church's push to bring back peace in the war-torn world of the early Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_peace_traditions#The_Middle_Ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_peace_traditions#The_...). For example just look at one of Thomas Aquinas's arguments regarding this: > Peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence Now, look at Google, an almost $1 trillion company which is one of the most successful business entities on this planet and tell me if you can say that "peace is a central motive" for them in the midst of the quest for profit. It isn't.
- mkempe 8y ago
  Thank you. This reminds me of Maria Montessori's words: If one has grown up with a veneration for humanity, one will not consent to become an unconscious, destructive force to destroy humanity. Men will not lend themselves to those erroneous ways which foolishly destroy the creators and maintainers of everything that provides for their existence. They will be unwilling to use the supernatural and universal powers which they possess for a cosmic cataclysm to destroy the fruits of civilisation. Having developed a conscience and sentiment towards human life, they will be incapable of cruelty; for cruelty belongs to a dead soul.
simion314 8y ago
I think as an individual we can decline working on things we consider immoral or evil even if they are legal. As an individual you may not want your name to be associated to evil(subjective) and you may want peace of mind. Say if my boss would ask me to do something I consider evil but it is legal I think I am strong enough and won't do it, and even advocate for my position. I also think that I have the right to talk with my colleagues and ask what they think and what can we do. The fact that it should be illegal to kill people remotely without a trial or a declaration of war is a different problem of employees opposing working on "evil" things.
pavelludiq 8y ago
You need a military in order to prevent other people from bombing your country. You absolutely do not need to bomb other people, and if fact if your goal is to not get bombed, not bombing other people might be your best option for a bunch of reasons[1]. If your goal is to systematically rob your population of wealth by dumping insane amounts of money into an otherwise mostly useless industry(you don't really need 12 carriers to defend your country for example, they are mostly useless for defense), bombing other people is a good option. [1] not making additional enemies, not setting the precedent that it's ok to bomb people, not driving away allies, not undermining your narrative that you're a good guy and therefore attacking you is unjustifiable, etc. These are just off the top of my head.
- koolba 8y ago
  > You need a military in order to prevent other people from bombing your country. You absolutely do not need to bomb other people, and if fact if your goal is to not get bombed, not bombing other people might be your best option for a bunch of reasons. And sometimes the best way to save lives of your people is to bomb other people. That’s very naive. Not all antagonists are rational state actors. Terrorist orgs like Al Qaeda or ISIS aren’t going to stop trying to kill you if you ignore them. The only solution is direct action and only question becomes who’s going to do it, i.e. the USA or a local proxy.
  - Marysville 8y ago
    You should perhaps read on what led to creation of these terrorist organizations. BBCs 'Hypernormalisation' would be a good start.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    ISIS is a direct consequence of US interventions. The Post-WWII history of the middle east mostly follows the pattern “US declares $X evil. In its fight against $X, US supports $lesserEvil with money and weapons. $Y years later $lesserEvil has used funding and weapons to grow and become $greaterEvil. US declares $W as $lesserEvil and funds them. Repeat.“ Short term that might seem smart, but do it long enough and you have a region full of well armed splitter groups, are least half of which hate you. The UdSSR/Russia isn't blameless either, but the most notable positive long term effect of US actions in the middle east seem to be more jobs in the military-industrial-complex.
empath75 8y ago
You should go after targets over which you have some leverage. As a google engineer, you have the ability to impact this particular program in a way that you can’t impact what other military programs do. Just as an American citizen you have more ability to impact American policy than you do Russian policy. Make an impact where you have the power to make an impact. I just quit my job because I was working on a DHS contract and it was getting harder and harder to ignore what they were doing to immigrants. It’s small, but I don’t want to have to answer for what I was doing to my children.
Hendrikto 8y ago
> Where does it stop? Wherever you want it to. This all-or-nothing approach to morality is stupid. Just because not every decision in your life may be 100% morally justifiable, that does not mean “throw all ethics over board”.
- azag0 8y ago
  Thank you.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> If a hostile foreign power was to invade your country, what would you want the response to be? This has nothing to do with the use of AI in weapons systems- like it has nothing to do with cluster munitions, landmines, biological or radiological weapons etc. The US (or any country really) can "defend" itself and its overseas interests without having to resort to such tactics.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Believe me, there are a dozen other large defense contractors out there that will implement this if Google doesn’t, so it’s not like it’s a binary proposition. Or for example, if I don't mug this old lady and take her handbag someone else will. Then again, if I don't do it and you don't do it and nobody else does it, then nobody will do it at all. Same for AI weapons- if nobody makes them there won't be none.
- nradov 8y ago
  Nobody? The Chinese military industrial complex is certainly developing AI weapons and will sell them to almost any nation state around the world. They're only a few years behind on technology and catching up fast.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rjkennedy98 8y ago
Google was the one that told everyone "Don't be evil". They are a perfectly ripe target for attacks on "ethics".

fakescience 8y ago

Yes, the arguments you outline would also be ways to reduce cognitive dissonance as well ("if we didn't do it, others would"). I don't think Google would stop all wars by not contributing to this project. But Google, and the employees who work at Google, has power - a kind of power that's very, very different from my power as an individual when paying taxes or when voting for a federal employee (behaviors that create dissonance for me because they contribute to the war machine). I think that power can, and should, be used to prevent wars - not to make them "cleaner". The small attempt at organizing protests made by some employees at the company was a good step, but the only one I have heard of (maybe there have been others?) and I want the people who have the most access to power to start thinking about what they are doing and trying to make more positive changes. Consume less. Be more mindful of environmental damage. Speak out against the oppressive regimes that help murder people.

flatline 8y ago
I basically agree with the last points. As to the drone strikes, I believe there is potential there for decent things. Who is to say these would not grant the power to stop a war by executing key individuals in a scenario where a manned strike would be prohibitive? And yet there is a clear moral hazard of facilitating murder. I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. I choose not to work on projects like that but I have trouble condemning some of these things out of hand.
- fakescience 8y ago
  Yeah, I think we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs about the effectiveness of violence (i.e. assassination via drones) to promote world peace. Hard to know what wars have been prevented via assassination, but if you might look into all the evidence of violence continuing or escalating after assassinations (how many "heads" of ISIS have been killed in drone strikes? and check out all the US activity in Latin America...). But that discussion goes beyond the graveyard of a hacker news comments section. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful responses.
- pizza234 8y ago
  > I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. Oh, there is actually a very clearcut line for this; it's coincisively described by the following headline: "If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We'd Ground Our Fleet"[⁰] [⁰] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-drone-strike-hit-an-american-wedding-wed-ground-our-fleet/282373/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-dr...
  - Quarrelsome 8y ago
    I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Also Middle Eastern weddings can occasionally be mis-interpreted as militant given the propensity for arms fire in celebration. If a drone strike hit an American wedding they would ground their _home_ fleet. Its a key difference. The information for an electorate of a democratic state to make more empathetic choices are available its just a question of whether: * The electorate are wilfully ignorant of foreign suffering (as its tortuous to read) * The electorate are kept ignorant intentionally or unintentionally as a product of the conflict for eye balls between media institutions. * The electorate are not able to make impactful choices due to the type of democracy they have. I'd argue its a bit of every one of those things. I prefer to measure things in outcomes and I would posit the major difference in supplying or not supplying arms to a conflict is merely the level of guilt from the origin of supply. People are still going to die be it by drone, missile, mortar, ak-47 or spear. We could argue that arms sales can enable conflict by giving one side an apparent advantage that they choose to capitalise on but that's a messy problem to investigate. Surely to wish to capitalise means that someone has already drawn the lines and is considering hostilities. What makes a war? The lines being drawn or the weapons or a combination of many factors multiplied over time and key events or decisions made by actors on either side? One may decide to war without advantage, one may choose not to war with advantage. So I don't think its as clear cut as weapon sales == war.

paganel 8y ago

> Or accept the reality that we live in a world that feels the need to kill people. We dream day and night about inventing self-driving cars and about reaching Mars (which are both nice things but without which I can easily live) but we've given up on trying to stop killing each other, and worse of all, we regard it as futile. It hasn't always been like that, for example just look at the Catholic Church's push to bring back peace in the war-torn world of the early Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_peace_traditions#The_Middle_Ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_peace_traditions#The_...). For example just look at one of Thomas Aquinas's arguments regarding this: > Peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence Now, look at Google, an almost $1 trillion company which is one of the most successful business entities on this planet and tell me if you can say that "peace is a central motive" for them in the midst of the quest for profit. It isn't.

mkempe 8y ago
Thank you. This reminds me of Maria Montessori's words: If one has grown up with a veneration for humanity, one will not consent to become an unconscious, destructive force to destroy humanity. Men will not lend themselves to those erroneous ways which foolishly destroy the creators and maintainers of everything that provides for their existence. They will be unwilling to use the supernatural and universal powers which they possess for a cosmic cataclysm to destroy the fruits of civilisation. Having developed a conscience and sentiment towards human life, they will be incapable of cruelty; for cruelty belongs to a dead soul.

simion314 8y ago

I think as an individual we can decline working on things we consider immoral or evil even if they are legal. As an individual you may not want your name to be associated to evil(subjective) and you may want peace of mind. Say if my boss would ask me to do something I consider evil but it is legal I think I am strong enough and won't do it, and even advocate for my position. I also think that I have the right to talk with my colleagues and ask what they think and what can we do. The fact that it should be illegal to kill people remotely without a trial or a declaration of war is a different problem of employees opposing working on "evil" things.

pavelludiq 8y ago

You need a military in order to prevent other people from bombing your country. You absolutely do not need to bomb other people, and if fact if your goal is to not get bombed, not bombing other people might be your best option for a bunch of reasons[1]. If your goal is to systematically rob your population of wealth by dumping insane amounts of money into an otherwise mostly useless industry(you don't really need 12 carriers to defend your country for example, they are mostly useless for defense), bombing other people is a good option. [1] not making additional enemies, not setting the precedent that it's ok to bomb people, not driving away allies, not undermining your narrative that you're a good guy and therefore attacking you is unjustifiable, etc. These are just off the top of my head.

koolba 8y ago
> You need a military in order to prevent other people from bombing your country. You absolutely do not need to bomb other people, and if fact if your goal is to not get bombed, not bombing other people might be your best option for a bunch of reasons. And sometimes the best way to save lives of your people is to bomb other people. That’s very naive. Not all antagonists are rational state actors. Terrorist orgs like Al Qaeda or ISIS aren’t going to stop trying to kill you if you ignore them. The only solution is direct action and only question becomes who’s going to do it, i.e. the USA or a local proxy.
- Marysville 8y ago
  You should perhaps read on what led to creation of these terrorist organizations. BBCs 'Hypernormalisation' would be a good start.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  ISIS is a direct consequence of US interventions. The Post-WWII history of the middle east mostly follows the pattern “US declares $X evil. In its fight against $X, US supports $lesserEvil with money and weapons. $Y years later $lesserEvil has used funding and weapons to grow and become $greaterEvil. US declares $W as $lesserEvil and funds them. Repeat.“ Short term that might seem smart, but do it long enough and you have a region full of well armed splitter groups, are least half of which hate you. The UdSSR/Russia isn't blameless either, but the most notable positive long term effect of US actions in the middle east seem to be more jobs in the military-industrial-complex.

empath75 8y ago

You should go after targets over which you have some leverage. As a google engineer, you have the ability to impact this particular program in a way that you can’t impact what other military programs do. Just as an American citizen you have more ability to impact American policy than you do Russian policy. Make an impact where you have the power to make an impact. I just quit my job because I was working on a DHS contract and it was getting harder and harder to ignore what they were doing to immigrants. It’s small, but I don’t want to have to answer for what I was doing to my children.

Hendrikto 8y ago

> Where does it stop? Wherever you want it to. This all-or-nothing approach to morality is stupid. Just because not every decision in your life may be 100% morally justifiable, that does not mean “throw all ethics over board”.

azag0 8y ago
Thank you.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> If a hostile foreign power was to invade your country, what would you want the response to be? This has nothing to do with the use of AI in weapons systems- like it has nothing to do with cluster munitions, landmines, biological or radiological weapons etc. The US (or any country really) can "defend" itself and its overseas interests without having to resort to such tactics.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> Believe me, there are a dozen other large defense contractors out there that will implement this if Google doesn’t, so it’s not like it’s a binary proposition. Or for example, if I don't mug this old lady and take her handbag someone else will. Then again, if I don't do it and you don't do it and nobody else does it, then nobody will do it at all. Same for AI weapons- if nobody makes them there won't be none.

nradov 8y ago
Nobody? The Chinese military industrial complex is certainly developing AI weapons and will sell them to almost any nation state around the world. They're only a few years behind on technology and catching up fast.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rjkennedy98 8y ago

Google was the one that told everyone "Don't be evil". They are a perfectly ripe target for attacks on "ethics".