14 ms·

> There is nothing that will stop this. The military will find a defense contractor to do their bidding. But Google can voluntarily elect to remove themselves f

by rifung 8y ago

> There is nothing that will stop this. The military will find a defense contractor to do their bidding. But Google can voluntarily elect to remove themselves from this sector. Let some other company do it. Let someone else figure it out. The blood of dead innocent civilians will be on their hands. You don't see Raytheon, Boeing, or Northrop crying about it. I work at Google but opinions are my own. This is actually the thing I don't understand. Could you or someone please kindly explain it to me? What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? I've seen this whole "Google is betraying its 'do not evil' by working with the military" as fact so many times but I've yet to get a better explanation for why it's actually evil besides some variation of "the military is bad"

DrJaws 8y ago
Some people will see the evil as the country you are working for is known as the one of the primary aggressors and war initiators of the history that continues to kill directly and indirectly hundreds of thousands of people in other countries bringing them "democracy" where no one asked them for anything. Others will just see it as a necessity and that every company should work and help the government when they are asked to defend the country and maintain the global status quo. for some that conduct is a virus, for others just a symbiosis, but it's easy to see where they come both of them.
- mc32 8y ago
  Well, what’s the alternate option? If the US hadn’t been the “police” of the world. It could have been Russia or China or India, would we rather have had them? And don’t say Europe unless you consider France and the U.K. and others and their things. We don’t live on a vacuum. If you create one, someone will fill it. I am loath to think of how much worse things could be despite the idiotic wars of Obama and W., I think the world is better off with the US guiding things rather than others.
  - hoppa_liza 8y ago
    If you boil down your statement into "I would rather have the Americans kill these people than the Chinese" you will begin to see the real meaning of what you are saying.
    - mc32 8y ago
      Maybe I’d ask the Vietnamese, who we fought, who they’d rather have, or the afghans who fought the USSR, who they’d rather have to get the meaning of what I’m saying. You can also ask the Pakistanis if they’d rather have US or India, go ahead.
      - jstanley 8y ago
        "Who would you rather be oppressed by?" isn't a very convincing argument that you're on the right side of history. Just because there exist worse oppressors than you doesn't mean you're not evil as well.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Why are these posed as either/or? The Vietnamese/Afghan people would rather have either side than the dual sided proxy war they received.
  - DrJaws 8y ago
    False dilemma fallacy
    - mc32 8y ago
      I do not think so, in this case, if we didn’t become hegemonic someone else would. Look at the Middle East and all the jockeying around within. Same for East Asia. The question is given someone will be stronger and exert power, who in a game theory framework would exercise their dominion with the least negative consequences. I’m confident most people would agree that the world is better off not having succumbed to Comintern communism. But regardless, what were the plausible alternative realities that you think were viable options given what we know?
    - nasredin 8y ago
      The least fallacious fallacy next to the Slippery Slope fallacy. If it's not US, Russia or China on top, then it is somebody else. What had the Romans ever done for us?!
  - onli 8y ago
    Absolute ridiculous false dilemma. It is not that if the US hadn't chosen to invade Vietnam and to kill everything that moves someone else would have, the US just opted to do that on their own. And it was not like they were there to free the people (from whom anyway, they were not enslaved). There was no vacuum to fill, the same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, were the US created the vacuum that was afterwards filled by the now crumbling ISIS (though there at least the people were not free before). And that's the core of the issue, and that is why these political comments are on point (which otherwise would be way too political for HN). By cooperating with the imperial US military Google is directly supporting one of the most evil forces in the world, by supporting the drone program they are directly supporting a program mainly used to kill civilians in the middle east. There is nothing good about this.
    - cinquemb 8y ago
      I don't think most people in the US will care about such issues until there's a program similar to the 1033[0], where hand-me-down autonomous drones are deployed agaisnt the civilian population stateside and weddings start getting double-tapped by MQ9 descendants. Loin des yeux, loin du cœur. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program
    - fsloth 8y ago
      "And that's the core of the issue, and that is why these political comments are on point... By cooperating with the imperial US military Google is directly supporting one of the most evil forces in the world" Do you mean the US military is one of the most evil forces in the world or the US itself as a geopolitical actor?
      - onli 8y ago
        I mainly meant the military there, however it is debatable how much you can separate the two. But that discussion would be imho too OT for here.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Oh come on. The US established itself as 'the world police' and built 900+ military bases around the globe to protect its own financial interests at the point of a gun. Let's not pretend it does any of this shit out of altruism.
    - nosequel 8y ago
      In many cases the countries have asked for the bases though. This is still happening today https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/05/29/why-poland-wants-a-permanent-us-military-base-and-is-willing-to-pay-2-billion-for-it https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/05/29/why-poland-wants-a...
spiderPig 8y ago
Think of it the other way, if Lockheed martin were to start a Gmail, GDocs equivalent tomorrow, would you use their services knowing how closely they work with the military? Would global users be comfortable using it? The whole PRISM fiasco isn't far from this. What's stopping the Pentagon from buying access to users data? It's a trust thing, imo.
- swebs 8y ago
  >Think of it the other way, if Lockheed martin were to start a Gmail, GDocs equivalent tomorrow, would you use their services knowing how closely they work with the military? Well yeah. The term "military grade" is one that tends to sell products. >What's stopping the Pentagon from buying access to users data? If there's no end to end encryption, I assume some three letter agency already has access.
- lajhsdfkl 8y ago
  > if Lockheed martin were to start a Gmail, GDocs equivalent tomorrow, would you use their services knowing how closely they work with the military? Them working closely with the military would not be the reason I would choose not to use their service considering that almost all emails already go through NSA servers.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  I make use of GE related products all the time and GE does military contracting. I fly on Boeing aircraft and Boeing makes military aircraft.
  - spiderPig 8y ago
    Yeah but GE isn’t in the business of collecting personal data about you and selling it. Google business is data not jet engines
AlexCoventry 8y ago
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? If you work on weapons which are then used to kill people, you are complicit in those murders. AI automation of weapons and surveillance systems is probably going to kill a large fraction of living humans. I'm not talking skynet, just about automation we could easily achieve right now. Anyone who works on those systems will be complicit in the subsequent genocides.
- ImSkeptical 8y ago
  What if you pay taxes that are used to buy the weapons that kill people? For the sake of discussion, suppose you know your tax dollars will be spent this way.
mattnewton 8y ago
Because they oppose the drone warfare program, which is killing noncombatants in nominally allied countries. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-obama-administrations-drone-strike-dissembling/473541/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-oba... It’s not the military that is evil, it’s this particular program in the eyes of many. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 Disclaimer: I am also fortunate to work at Google and my opinions are my own.
- slg 8y ago
  >Because they oppose the drone warfare program, which is killing noncombatants in nominally allied countries. I don't understand this logic. Drones are a weapon. They are not any more evil than any other weapon that the military uses. They aren't killing people autonomously. There is a human pilot behind every death. The pilot just happens to be hundreds or thousands miles away from the aircraft. Would we be fine with the military killing the exact same people if the pilot was simply on the aircraft that launched the missiles or bombs? The distinct advantage of drones is to safeguard the lives of military personnel by not putting them in harms way. You can make an argument that this fact makes using military force politically easier, but I think the blame for that is once again on the military/political leadership and not the drones themselves. If your problem is with killing people, it should be with the people who ordered the killing and not the specific weapon that was used to carry out the killing.
  - eksemplar 8y ago
    So the people who build the Death Star are innocent? The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to. I wouldn’t personally want to work in weapons development, but I certainly wouldn’t want to work in weapons development for a military that as a result of its offensive use of its weapons is making children in the third world afraid of blue skies. But I have a gmail and I use google maps, so I’m not really in a position to judge.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I tend to agree with you, but as a question when would you picture the actions of the US military indeed becoming an overall negative on society? And then at which point would enhancing said capabilities itself also then become undesirable? It's a tricky question since a strong military is obviously necessary to protect a nation, yet at the same time - our military's purpose has long since shifted from defensive to offensive - and those offensive actions have been of very dubious value at extreme cost, both monetary and in the loss of life inflicted and suffered.
xevb3k 8y ago
And this is why “don’t be evil” is a hopelessly naive statement. Some would define US military actions as just and civilian casualties (for example) as unfortunate. Others might define them as outright evil. Almost nobody thinks they are “evil” there’s usually some kind of justification.
- mc32 8y ago
  So, withdraw and let them duke it out? It’s not always clear cut. Trump wants to pull out and people call him isolationist. Obama tried to get involved and lit a powder keg. It’s not easy. W, sure, he messed up.
kitsune_ 8y ago
Your technology will ultimately be used to kill people. Bear in mind that the US electorate showed itself capable of crowning a unhinged TV show host as its commander in chief.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  I can disagree with my country's politics and still see value in my country's military.
paganel 8y ago
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? In case your question is serious: There are still some of us who believe in peace as an end-goal for us humans, as a race. See Kant's "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophical_Sketch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophic...) for a more detailed view on the subject. "Working with the military or developing weapons" are two activities that strongly work against achieving that goal (even though there would be some who would say that in the short term they do the opposite, i.e. that the military's purpose is to bring peace).
- cheschire 8y ago
  The military's purpose in modern times is not to bring peace, it is to preserve peace. I find it an important distinction, as "bringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. To "preserve" peace implies, at least to me, that the military is focused on the peace of the home population, and may take action elsewhere only in preservation of that home population's peace. Otherwise you have the crusades.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    > "[B]ringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. Well, that definitely seems to be the purpose of the US military.
    - Bartweiss 8y ago
      It was even the stated goal of neoconservatives launching US military actions, as 'nation building' and 'spreading democracy'. Honestly, "don't say bringing peace" feels alarmingly close to "obviously we did this, but don't admit to it".
  - hapnin 8y ago
    The idea of the military preserving peace is like thinking a group of horny boys will preserve virginity. The US is the most aggressive military on Earth. There's no peace in its presence.
partycoder 8y ago
For context, read the testimonial of a drone operator. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron... Now imagine removing decision making from drone operators and making the thing dumb and autonomous, so a computer vision based solution just shoots anything resembling its target. If shit goes south, just blame the machine. It's nobody's fault. It's a plausible deniability paradise.
devy 8y ago
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? Watch this video[1] and realizing that Project Maven is contributing and enhancing the capability of the slaughter drones and knowing that current U.S. President(or future presidents) or any command chain above the drone operator( including the operator) can kill anyone (military personnel or not, in a war or not, in conflict zones or not, American citizens or not, yes there was a precedence from President Obama) with or without due process, with Google's AI, doesn't give you chills? Yeah yeah I know if Google didn't do it someone else will. But for a company who's been claiming "Do No Evil" as motto from early on, I am holding Google at a higher standard - but obviously it has fallen from the moral highground. Hence being evil. [1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/20/watch-out-for-killer-robots-uc-berkeley-professor-warns-in-video/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/20/watch-out-for-killer-...
krageon 8y ago
What is evil about murder? If you honestly don't think that is a bad thing then I will grant you that for you, working with the military is fine.
omeid2 8y ago
Perhaps this will shed some light: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/feb/15/sonia-kennebeck-us-air-force-drone-war-home-roost https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/feb/15/sonia-kennebeck...
thoughtsalone 8y ago
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? I guess this question is only asked by those who are confident that these weapons won't be used against them.
wukerplank 8y ago
Well, "evil" is a point of view of course. You don't even have to be a pacifist to reject working in the weapons industry. To me it's like working for a gambling site or a hedge fund. I'd rather work for a mission that makes the world a better place, not worse.
pimmen 8y ago
Working on weapons is ok, working on AI controlled weapons however is very dangerous. There are many unsolved ethical questions around this as in, who is responsible for the civilian casualties? Soldiers, pilots, sailors and commanding officers have rules of engagement so I ask, if the rules of engagement are coded and they glitch out, causing the murder of innocent people, who killed them? Is it the software engineering team? What if the training data of the AI is skewed and furthers the violent oppression of a minority, who's responsible for that? Is it the data collectors? The software engineering team?
jacquesm 8y ago
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? That your work will be used to kill people? I'm kind of surprised that needs spelling out.
- amelius 8y ago
  But perhaps the idea is that of deterrence, i.e. that you don't actually plan to use the weapons unless someone forces you to use them. See Mutual Assured Destruction. Or you can use them defensively. Killing is evil, but if someone points a gun at you, would you still feel evil if you killed them instead? Weapons can also neutralize weapons (instead of people), e.g. missile interception. Further, it might be possible to develop effective non-lethal weapons (military equivalent of taser). Finally, developing weapons can also mean that weapons become safer. For instance, less collateral damage. Or weapons that can be controlled better, so they can't be used by people who shouldn't use them.
- edanm 8y ago
  Do you believe that having a military is evil? Serving in the military is evil?
  - workinthehead 8y ago
    That's an intellectually dishonest question and you know it, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
    - chrononaut 8y ago
      How? It's a legitimate extension of the previous thought. If it is viewed as evil to develop instruments that would kill people, is it also evil to use those instruments to kill people? Likewise, if no one developed instruments to kill people, the military would be an ineffective organization at the task that it's responsible for, and thus would the organization also be considered evil?
ma2rten 8y ago
The comment that you quoted is missing the point a little bit. We are talking about using AI to power weapons. That is uncharted territory and a decision that should be taken lightly and be done behind closed doors. You have to understand that many people both at HN and at Google are not Americans. The United States is founded on great democratic values, but in the past sometimes failed to uphold them in relationship to other countries (dropping an atomic bomb on Japan, the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, torturing in Guantanamo and the NSA's prism program which directly affected Google).
exitheone 8y ago
I also work at Google, my opinions are my own as well. I don't work in the US. I'm not a US citizen. I don't support the actions of the US military. Hell I _really_ don't want to be involved with the weapons development branch of the US military. That is one reason why me and a lot of Googlers are opposed to this. Would you be happy for Google to work with the military of another country you have zero control over that has very questionable motives?
sireat 8y ago
Working for military by building superior exo-skeletons and armor/weapons for soldiers as well as gear carrying robot-dogs is pretty okay if one realizes the need for military. Then these soldiers go on site in another country risk their lives and take out specific bad guys without shooting too many bystanders. You can then argue whether those were really bad guys and whether that specific operation needed to be carried out. Building drones which are controlled remotely(or even worse by AI) to kill a wedding with kids where possibly a few people were the bad guys is NOT OK. Drones facilitate political/military cop-outs. For extra credit you can watch a few seasons of Homeland. Sure it is fiction but the issues are there. To reiterate: even if you support working for military there is difference on what kind of weapons you work on
- grigjd3 8y ago
  I agree that there is a difference on what kind of weapon one works on. I clearly view chemical weapons as both horrible to use and useless as a deterrent. However, I can't claim I have the moral authority to dictate what falls across the line with perfection. Thus I am not going to judge other people's decisions with such passion.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
saiya-jin 8y ago
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? Your lack of any morality doesn't cast a good light neither on you nor your employer, but at this point, I am not surprised anymore. But in case you are actually honest, brief explanation - US military indeed has evil aspects, consistently, over last 60 years. Perspective changes vastly whether you live in US or not though. It's a emotionless machine that killed tens millions of innocent civilians for no good reason nor any clear victory (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc). In cold blood, for profit, political games that clearly achieved nothing apart from hundred of billions spent on military equipment that makes the owners of those companies very happy. You can have US-centric view that any human life is worth next to nothing simply because he/she doesn't have a US passport. Well, we can and as a mankind should do better. And google is willingly becoming part of this, just to have a bit of extra profit. 'Don't do evil' is indeed a very bad joke in this perspective. I am becoming done with that company for various reasons mentioned in this thread. I don't care how good the products are, I am never going to support it in any way. Simply because my money would contribute to this behavior. I know I am just a single customer, so are all the others.
ionised 8y ago
Because the drone program is highly unethical and responsible for the killing of countless civilians?
barrkel 8y ago
Because better weapons - especially, autonomous weapons - lowers the barriers to starting wars. Instead of starting wars for defense purposes, they get started for resource control reasons, or even for business reasons, for the well-connected.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  All wars are about resources.
snarf21 8y ago
One issue is that this a lot different than an aircraft carrier cannon. Those are super expensive and limited in where and how they can be used. Also, the bigger the fear is that we don't know where this will stop. Great, so drones are being used in war for strategic strikes. Given the current administration, how long before that might be used to track down people near the border? How long after that to track down people who publicly criticize the administration? The biggest issue is that this enables an Orwellian society that actually scales and scales quickly. And for anyone playing at home, the "if not us, someone else" argument doesn't wash. We as a society have to draw a line. Maybe someone else will do it, but we need to fight them and not allow it, not just take our money and put our head in the sand. Just like the backlash about the NSA putting backdoors in routers and the more recent announcement of Amazon enabling a police state by scanning and identifying faces in pictures and videos. I'm worried that this will continue to push us to some pre-crime bullshit but instead of oracles with magic powers, it will be some half ass AI based on factors like race, gender, neighborhood and time of day.
- josefresco 8y ago
  "Maybe someone else will do it, but we need to fight them and not allow it, not just take our money and put our head in the sand" China & Russia are doing it. You can't fight them without ... fighting them.
  - snarf21 8y ago
    Maybe we could spend our resources building systems that destroy drones instead of an arms race. I'm not saying there are easy answers but being defeatist is not my approach. I wonder what good we could do in this world if we really tried.
    - josefresco 8y ago
      Not so much defeatist as it is being a realist about the threats facing you, and the world. Maybe we could spend our resources building systems that destroy drones instead of an arms race. That's just another ... weapon ;)
bipson 8y ago
I sometimes wish the USA would have learned the same lessons from WWII as e.g. Germany did: See, if your military or government is killing people, and you work for them, assist them, or let them, you are also killing people. We have a saying: "Imagine it's war and nobody shows up". I fear this discussion is about if you follow the narrative that US military drone strikes are a purely defensive measure, unavoidable, or serve some greater cause. Large parts of the general public outside of the US at least are of the opinion the US military and associated mercenary companies have been (and still are?) killing (innocent) people on the other side of the world, for dubios reasons. Helping them build weapons, under this assumption, equals helping them kill people. Even the most accurate AK-47 is intended to kill people.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gameswithgo 8y ago
>What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? Well, they kill people, see.
- rifung 8y ago
  And why is that evil? Are people who join the military evil? Police?
Bombthecat 8y ago
Soon or later we will find out why it is a bad idea why a company shouldn't be everywhere. There is a reason why we separated executive, judicativ and legestative. But that's a lesson to be learned by blood.
knuththetruth 8y ago
Here’s a good summation of the inherent moral problems of this project by the International Committee for Robot Arms Control: https://www.icrac.net/open-letter-in-support-of-google-employees-and-tech-workers/ https://www.icrac.net/open-letter-in-support-of-google-emplo...
DoubleDerper 8y ago
domestic social anxiety that these tools/weapons will just as likely be used to target US citizens. in this political climate it seems tone deaf to ignore those concerns.
dontreact 8y ago
Disclaimer: I also work at Google I think that the problem is more specific than working with the military or developing weapons, and it's important to disentangle the more broad concerns with military work versus the concerns about this specific project occurring at Google. I personally would not like to work on developing weapons but it's definitely much harder to defend a position such as "building ships for the U.S Navy is evil". The problem with Project Maven is plugging A.I. into drones. Sure, you can argue that A.I. today is limited and the technology isn't there to make them autonomous. However, perception/object detection is a huge component of what would be needed as part of an intelligence that can run a drone autonomously. Then you arrive at basically 2 questions 1. Is Google's participation Project Maven making it easier for the Department of Defense to develop fully automated drones, or will they always leave a human in the loop? 2. Is enabling the Department of Defense to develop automated drones ethical? #1 Yes, Project Maven enables automated drones. Sure, the Department of Defense could get automated perception technology from somewhere else, but that is in fact what the parent post is proposing Google should let the Department of Defense do. Also, A.I. advances very quickly and if the project continues there may be other ways in which Google is enabling full automation of drones, for example reinforcement-learning based control. I personally do not trust that the Department of Defense will not develop automated drones if they have the capability to do so. This is because they will probably see it as an arms race, and automating drones will serve most of the aims of their organization far too well to be put off indefinitely. #2 I believe it is unethical to facilitate the development of fully autonomous, intelligent weapons. It's hard to make a stronger case than the video someone else has linked elsewhere in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM -The potential for chaos and destruction is very high. -The capability to find and eliminate targets will likely precede the ability to make ethical decisions, and human ethical oversight of the kill decisions will be reduced especially if the drones are scaled up For more on this check out http://autonomousweapons.org/ http://autonomousweapons.org/
- stillsut 8y ago
  I don't see how the desire simply for defense can avoid developing autonomy in micro-drone interceptors: Oh no, a bad guy drone is flying right towards the pope! Deploy the autonomous interception drone to stop it. No way a human pilot can conceivably defend against this type threat. Which means we need autonomy to protect, and that does lead to the dual-use dilemma.
dustinmoorenet 8y ago
Imagine French or Russian drones flying around remote parts of the US taking out targets that have been classified as criminal by that particular government. And then imagine your family lives in the same remote area. No one should be happy this is happening anywhere in the world.
greyman 8y ago
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? I wouldn't use the word evil, but I feel it is inappropriate, since Google is a global company. We should be more precise, it is working with the military of one specific country, and developing weapons for one specific country (U.S.). I am also an user of Google services, which also collect my personal data to provide me with more personalized experience. Ok. But what if, hypothetically, a war will break out, and army of my country will fight against U.S. army, which is helped by Google? It just doesn't feel right.
gr__or 8y ago
From outside the US (which is where I'm from) the US military doesn't look very benevolent. Do I want my data to be used to help causes I believe to be harmful to human life? No! It's that simple.
- ghein 8y ago
  Then shouldn't you be morally opposed to using the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency network? Or the Global Positioning System where the primary purpose is to position nuclear and conventional weapons globally on Chinese and Russian forces? Not to mention abhorring the use of semi-conductors that were created solely for the purposes of the US Department of Defense? Be consistent!
  - gr__or 8y ago
    So I have to cheer for coups and the desctruction of the Middle East because I appreciate the Internet & GPS? That's not consistent, that's lacking nuance. On the spectrum of things the US military does, I see the drone program closer to the former than the latter.

by rifung 8y ago

DrJaws 8y ago

Some people will see the evil as the country you are working for is known as the one of the primary aggressors and war initiators of the history that continues to kill directly and indirectly hundreds of thousands of people in other countries bringing them "democracy" where no one asked them for anything. Others will just see it as a necessity and that every company should work and help the government when they are asked to defend the country and maintain the global status quo. for some that conduct is a virus, for others just a symbiosis, but it's easy to see where they come both of them.

mc32 8y ago
Well, what’s the alternate option? If the US hadn’t been the “police” of the world. It could have been Russia or China or India, would we rather have had them? And don’t say Europe unless you consider France and the U.K. and others and their things. We don’t live on a vacuum. If you create one, someone will fill it. I am loath to think of how much worse things could be despite the idiotic wars of Obama and W., I think the world is better off with the US guiding things rather than others.
- hoppa_liza 8y ago
  If you boil down your statement into "I would rather have the Americans kill these people than the Chinese" you will begin to see the real meaning of what you are saying.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Maybe I’d ask the Vietnamese, who we fought, who they’d rather have, or the afghans who fought the USSR, who they’d rather have to get the meaning of what I’m saying. You can also ask the Pakistanis if they’d rather have US or India, go ahead.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      "Who would you rather be oppressed by?" isn't a very convincing argument that you're on the right side of history. Just because there exist worse oppressors than you doesn't mean you're not evil as well.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      Why are these posed as either/or? The Vietnamese/Afghan people would rather have either side than the dual sided proxy war they received.
- DrJaws 8y ago
  False dilemma fallacy
  - mc32 8y ago
    I do not think so, in this case, if we didn’t become hegemonic someone else would. Look at the Middle East and all the jockeying around within. Same for East Asia. The question is given someone will be stronger and exert power, who in a game theory framework would exercise their dominion with the least negative consequences. I’m confident most people would agree that the world is better off not having succumbed to Comintern communism. But regardless, what were the plausible alternative realities that you think were viable options given what we know?
  - nasredin 8y ago
    The least fallacious fallacy next to the Slippery Slope fallacy. If it's not US, Russia or China on top, then it is somebody else. What had the Romans ever done for us?!
- onli 8y ago
  Absolute ridiculous false dilemma. It is not that if the US hadn't chosen to invade Vietnam and to kill everything that moves someone else would have, the US just opted to do that on their own. And it was not like they were there to free the people (from whom anyway, they were not enslaved). There was no vacuum to fill, the same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, were the US created the vacuum that was afterwards filled by the now crumbling ISIS (though there at least the people were not free before). And that's the core of the issue, and that is why these political comments are on point (which otherwise would be way too political for HN). By cooperating with the imperial US military Google is directly supporting one of the most evil forces in the world, by supporting the drone program they are directly supporting a program mainly used to kill civilians in the middle east. There is nothing good about this.
  - cinquemb 8y ago
    I don't think most people in the US will care about such issues until there's a program similar to the 1033[0], where hand-me-down autonomous drones are deployed agaisnt the civilian population stateside and weddings start getting double-tapped by MQ9 descendants. Loin des yeux, loin du cœur. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program
  - fsloth 8y ago
    "And that's the core of the issue, and that is why these political comments are on point... By cooperating with the imperial US military Google is directly supporting one of the most evil forces in the world" Do you mean the US military is one of the most evil forces in the world or the US itself as a geopolitical actor?
    - onli 8y ago
      I mainly meant the military there, however it is debatable how much you can separate the two. But that discussion would be imho too OT for here.
- ionised 8y ago
  Oh come on. The US established itself as 'the world police' and built 900+ military bases around the globe to protect its own financial interests at the point of a gun. Let's not pretend it does any of this shit out of altruism.
  - nosequel 8y ago
    In many cases the countries have asked for the bases though. This is still happening today https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/05/29/why-poland-wants-a-permanent-us-military-base-and-is-willing-to-pay-2-billion-for-it https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/05/29/why-poland-wants-a...

spiderPig 8y ago

Think of it the other way, if Lockheed martin were to start a Gmail, GDocs equivalent tomorrow, would you use their services knowing how closely they work with the military? Would global users be comfortable using it? The whole PRISM fiasco isn't far from this. What's stopping the Pentagon from buying access to users data? It's a trust thing, imo.

swebs 8y ago
>Think of it the other way, if Lockheed martin were to start a Gmail, GDocs equivalent tomorrow, would you use their services knowing how closely they work with the military? Well yeah. The term "military grade" is one that tends to sell products. >What's stopping the Pentagon from buying access to users data? If there's no end to end encryption, I assume some three letter agency already has access.
lajhsdfkl 8y ago
> if Lockheed martin were to start a Gmail, GDocs equivalent tomorrow, would you use their services knowing how closely they work with the military? Them working closely with the military would not be the reason I would choose not to use their service considering that almost all emails already go through NSA servers.
grigjd3 8y ago
I make use of GE related products all the time and GE does military contracting. I fly on Boeing aircraft and Boeing makes military aircraft.
- spiderPig 8y ago
  Yeah but GE isn’t in the business of collecting personal data about you and selling it. Google business is data not jet engines

AlexCoventry 8y ago

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? If you work on weapons which are then used to kill people, you are complicit in those murders. AI automation of weapons and surveillance systems is probably going to kill a large fraction of living humans. I'm not talking skynet, just about automation we could easily achieve right now. Anyone who works on those systems will be complicit in the subsequent genocides.

ImSkeptical 8y ago
What if you pay taxes that are used to buy the weapons that kill people? For the sake of discussion, suppose you know your tax dollars will be spent this way.

mattnewton 8y ago

Because they oppose the drone warfare program, which is killing noncombatants in nominally allied countries. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-obama-administrations-drone-strike-dissembling/473541/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-oba... It’s not the military that is evil, it’s this particular program in the eyes of many. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 Disclaimer: I am also fortunate to work at Google and my opinions are my own.

slg 8y ago
>Because they oppose the drone warfare program, which is killing noncombatants in nominally allied countries. I don't understand this logic. Drones are a weapon. They are not any more evil than any other weapon that the military uses. They aren't killing people autonomously. There is a human pilot behind every death. The pilot just happens to be hundreds or thousands miles away from the aircraft. Would we be fine with the military killing the exact same people if the pilot was simply on the aircraft that launched the missiles or bombs? The distinct advantage of drones is to safeguard the lives of military personnel by not putting them in harms way. You can make an argument that this fact makes using military force politically easier, but I think the blame for that is once again on the military/political leadership and not the drones themselves. If your problem is with killing people, it should be with the people who ordered the killing and not the specific weapon that was used to carry out the killing.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  So the people who build the Death Star are innocent? The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to. I wouldn’t personally want to work in weapons development, but I certainly wouldn’t want to work in weapons development for a military that as a result of its offensive use of its weapons is making children in the third world afraid of blue skies. But I have a gmail and I use google maps, so I’m not really in a position to judge.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

I tend to agree with you, but as a question when would you picture the actions of the US military indeed becoming an overall negative on society? And then at which point would enhancing said capabilities itself also then become undesirable? It's a tricky question since a strong military is obviously necessary to protect a nation, yet at the same time - our military's purpose has long since shifted from defensive to offensive - and those offensive actions have been of very dubious value at extreme cost, both monetary and in the loss of life inflicted and suffered.

xevb3k 8y ago

And this is why “don’t be evil” is a hopelessly naive statement. Some would define US military actions as just and civilian casualties (for example) as unfortunate. Others might define them as outright evil. Almost nobody thinks they are “evil” there’s usually some kind of justification.

mc32 8y ago
So, withdraw and let them duke it out? It’s not always clear cut. Trump wants to pull out and people call him isolationist. Obama tried to get involved and lit a powder keg. It’s not easy. W, sure, he messed up.

kitsune_ 8y ago

Your technology will ultimately be used to kill people. Bear in mind that the US electorate showed itself capable of crowning a unhinged TV show host as its commander in chief.

grigjd3 8y ago
I can disagree with my country's politics and still see value in my country's military.

paganel 8y ago

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? In case your question is serious: There are still some of us who believe in peace as an end-goal for us humans, as a race. See Kant's "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophical_Sketch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophic...) for a more detailed view on the subject. "Working with the military or developing weapons" are two activities that strongly work against achieving that goal (even though there would be some who would say that in the short term they do the opposite, i.e. that the military's purpose is to bring peace).

cheschire 8y ago
The military's purpose in modern times is not to bring peace, it is to preserve peace. I find it an important distinction, as "bringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. To "preserve" peace implies, at least to me, that the military is focused on the peace of the home population, and may take action elsewhere only in preservation of that home population's peace. Otherwise you have the crusades.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  > "[B]ringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. Well, that definitely seems to be the purpose of the US military.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    It was even the stated goal of neoconservatives launching US military actions, as 'nation building' and 'spreading democracy'. Honestly, "don't say bringing peace" feels alarmingly close to "obviously we did this, but don't admit to it".
- hapnin 8y ago
  The idea of the military preserving peace is like thinking a group of horny boys will preserve virginity. The US is the most aggressive military on Earth. There's no peace in its presence.

partycoder 8y ago

For context, read the testimonial of a drone operator. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron... Now imagine removing decision making from drone operators and making the thing dumb and autonomous, so a computer vision based solution just shoots anything resembling its target. If shit goes south, just blame the machine. It's nobody's fault. It's a plausible deniability paradise.

devy 8y ago

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? Watch this video[1] and realizing that Project Maven is contributing and enhancing the capability of the slaughter drones and knowing that current U.S. President(or future presidents) or any command chain above the drone operator( including the operator) can kill anyone (military personnel or not, in a war or not, in conflict zones or not, American citizens or not, yes there was a precedence from President Obama) with or without due process, with Google's AI, doesn't give you chills? Yeah yeah I know if Google didn't do it someone else will. But for a company who's been claiming "Do No Evil" as motto from early on, I am holding Google at a higher standard - but obviously it has fallen from the moral highground. Hence being evil. [1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/20/watch-out-for-killer-robots-uc-berkeley-professor-warns-in-video/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/20/watch-out-for-killer-...

krageon 8y ago

What is evil about murder? If you honestly don't think that is a bad thing then I will grant you that for you, working with the military is fine.

omeid2 8y ago

Perhaps this will shed some light: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/feb/15/sonia-kennebeck-us-air-force-drone-war-home-roost https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/feb/15/sonia-kennebeck...

thoughtsalone 8y ago

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? I guess this question is only asked by those who are confident that these weapons won't be used against them.

wukerplank 8y ago

Well, "evil" is a point of view of course. You don't even have to be a pacifist to reject working in the weapons industry. To me it's like working for a gambling site or a hedge fund. I'd rather work for a mission that makes the world a better place, not worse.

pimmen 8y ago

Working on weapons is ok, working on AI controlled weapons however is very dangerous. There are many unsolved ethical questions around this as in, who is responsible for the civilian casualties? Soldiers, pilots, sailors and commanding officers have rules of engagement so I ask, if the rules of engagement are coded and they glitch out, causing the murder of innocent people, who killed them? Is it the software engineering team? What if the training data of the AI is skewed and furthers the violent oppression of a minority, who's responsible for that? Is it the data collectors? The software engineering team?

jacquesm 8y ago

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? That your work will be used to kill people? I'm kind of surprised that needs spelling out.

amelius 8y ago
But perhaps the idea is that of deterrence, i.e. that you don't actually plan to use the weapons unless someone forces you to use them. See Mutual Assured Destruction. Or you can use them defensively. Killing is evil, but if someone points a gun at you, would you still feel evil if you killed them instead? Weapons can also neutralize weapons (instead of people), e.g. missile interception. Further, it might be possible to develop effective non-lethal weapons (military equivalent of taser). Finally, developing weapons can also mean that weapons become safer. For instance, less collateral damage. Or weapons that can be controlled better, so they can't be used by people who shouldn't use them.
edanm 8y ago
Do you believe that having a military is evil? Serving in the military is evil?
- workinthehead 8y ago
  That's an intellectually dishonest question and you know it, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
  - chrononaut 8y ago
    How? It's a legitimate extension of the previous thought. If it is viewed as evil to develop instruments that would kill people, is it also evil to use those instruments to kill people? Likewise, if no one developed instruments to kill people, the military would be an ineffective organization at the task that it's responsible for, and thus would the organization also be considered evil?

ma2rten 8y ago

The comment that you quoted is missing the point a little bit. We are talking about using AI to power weapons. That is uncharted territory and a decision that should be taken lightly and be done behind closed doors. You have to understand that many people both at HN and at Google are not Americans. The United States is founded on great democratic values, but in the past sometimes failed to uphold them in relationship to other countries (dropping an atomic bomb on Japan, the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, torturing in Guantanamo and the NSA's prism program which directly affected Google).

exitheone 8y ago

I also work at Google, my opinions are my own as well. I don't work in the US. I'm not a US citizen. I don't support the actions of the US military. Hell I _really_ don't want to be involved with the weapons development branch of the US military. That is one reason why me and a lot of Googlers are opposed to this. Would you be happy for Google to work with the military of another country you have zero control over that has very questionable motives?

sireat 8y ago

Working for military by building superior exo-skeletons and armor/weapons for soldiers as well as gear carrying robot-dogs is pretty okay if one realizes the need for military. Then these soldiers go on site in another country risk their lives and take out specific bad guys without shooting too many bystanders. You can then argue whether those were really bad guys and whether that specific operation needed to be carried out. Building drones which are controlled remotely(or even worse by AI) to kill a wedding with kids where possibly a few people were the bad guys is NOT OK. Drones facilitate political/military cop-outs. For extra credit you can watch a few seasons of Homeland. Sure it is fiction but the issues are there. To reiterate: even if you support working for military there is difference on what kind of weapons you work on

grigjd3 8y ago
I agree that there is a difference on what kind of weapon one works on. I clearly view chemical weapons as both horrible to use and useless as a deterrent. However, I can't claim I have the moral authority to dictate what falls across the line with perfection. Thus I am not going to judge other people's decisions with such passion.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

saiya-jin 8y ago

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? Your lack of any morality doesn't cast a good light neither on you nor your employer, but at this point, I am not surprised anymore. But in case you are actually honest, brief explanation - US military indeed has evil aspects, consistently, over last 60 years. Perspective changes vastly whether you live in US or not though. It's a emotionless machine that killed tens millions of innocent civilians for no good reason nor any clear victory (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc). In cold blood, for profit, political games that clearly achieved nothing apart from hundred of billions spent on military equipment that makes the owners of those companies very happy. You can have US-centric view that any human life is worth next to nothing simply because he/she doesn't have a US passport. Well, we can and as a mankind should do better. And google is willingly becoming part of this, just to have a bit of extra profit. 'Don't do evil' is indeed a very bad joke in this perspective. I am becoming done with that company for various reasons mentioned in this thread. I don't care how good the products are, I am never going to support it in any way. Simply because my money would contribute to this behavior. I know I am just a single customer, so are all the others.

ionised 8y ago

Because the drone program is highly unethical and responsible for the killing of countless civilians?

barrkel 8y ago

Because better weapons - especially, autonomous weapons - lowers the barriers to starting wars. Instead of starting wars for defense purposes, they get started for resource control reasons, or even for business reasons, for the well-connected.

grigjd3 8y ago
All wars are about resources.

snarf21 8y ago

One issue is that this a lot different than an aircraft carrier cannon. Those are super expensive and limited in where and how they can be used. Also, the bigger the fear is that we don't know where this will stop. Great, so drones are being used in war for strategic strikes. Given the current administration, how long before that might be used to track down people near the border? How long after that to track down people who publicly criticize the administration? The biggest issue is that this enables an Orwellian society that actually scales and scales quickly. And for anyone playing at home, the "if not us, someone else" argument doesn't wash. We as a society have to draw a line. Maybe someone else will do it, but we need to fight them and not allow it, not just take our money and put our head in the sand. Just like the backlash about the NSA putting backdoors in routers and the more recent announcement of Amazon enabling a police state by scanning and identifying faces in pictures and videos. I'm worried that this will continue to push us to some pre-crime bullshit but instead of oracles with magic powers, it will be some half ass AI based on factors like race, gender, neighborhood and time of day.

josefresco 8y ago
"Maybe someone else will do it, but we need to fight them and not allow it, not just take our money and put our head in the sand" China & Russia are doing it. You can't fight them without ... fighting them.
- snarf21 8y ago
  Maybe we could spend our resources building systems that destroy drones instead of an arms race. I'm not saying there are easy answers but being defeatist is not my approach. I wonder what good we could do in this world if we really tried.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    Not so much defeatist as it is being a realist about the threats facing you, and the world. Maybe we could spend our resources building systems that destroy drones instead of an arms race. That's just another ... weapon ;)

bipson 8y ago

I sometimes wish the USA would have learned the same lessons from WWII as e.g. Germany did: See, if your military or government is killing people, and you work for them, assist them, or let them, you are also killing people. We have a saying: "Imagine it's war and nobody shows up". I fear this discussion is about if you follow the narrative that US military drone strikes are a purely defensive measure, unavoidable, or serve some greater cause. Large parts of the general public outside of the US at least are of the opinion the US military and associated mercenary companies have been (and still are?) killing (innocent) people on the other side of the world, for dubios reasons. Helping them build weapons, under this assumption, equals helping them kill people. Even the most accurate AK-47 is intended to kill people.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gameswithgo 8y ago

>What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? Well, they kill people, see.

rifung 8y ago
And why is that evil? Are people who join the military evil? Police?

Bombthecat 8y ago

Soon or later we will find out why it is a bad idea why a company shouldn't be everywhere. There is a reason why we separated executive, judicativ and legestative. But that's a lesson to be learned by blood.

knuththetruth 8y ago

Here’s a good summation of the inherent moral problems of this project by the International Committee for Robot Arms Control: https://www.icrac.net/open-letter-in-support-of-google-employees-and-tech-workers/ https://www.icrac.net/open-letter-in-support-of-google-emplo...

DoubleDerper 8y ago

domestic social anxiety that these tools/weapons will just as likely be used to target US citizens. in this political climate it seems tone deaf to ignore those concerns.

dontreact 8y ago

Disclaimer: I also work at Google I think that the problem is more specific than working with the military or developing weapons, and it's important to disentangle the more broad concerns with military work versus the concerns about this specific project occurring at Google. I personally would not like to work on developing weapons but it's definitely much harder to defend a position such as "building ships for the U.S Navy is evil". The problem with Project Maven is plugging A.I. into drones. Sure, you can argue that A.I. today is limited and the technology isn't there to make them autonomous. However, perception/object detection is a huge component of what would be needed as part of an intelligence that can run a drone autonomously. Then you arrive at basically 2 questions 1. Is Google's participation Project Maven making it easier for the Department of Defense to develop fully automated drones, or will they always leave a human in the loop? 2. Is enabling the Department of Defense to develop automated drones ethical? #1 Yes, Project Maven enables automated drones. Sure, the Department of Defense could get automated perception technology from somewhere else, but that is in fact what the parent post is proposing Google should let the Department of Defense do. Also, A.I. advances very quickly and if the project continues there may be other ways in which Google is enabling full automation of drones, for example reinforcement-learning based control. I personally do not trust that the Department of Defense will not develop automated drones if they have the capability to do so. This is because they will probably see it as an arms race, and automating drones will serve most of the aims of their organization far too well to be put off indefinitely. #2 I believe it is unethical to facilitate the development of fully autonomous, intelligent weapons. It's hard to make a stronger case than the video someone else has linked elsewhere in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM -The potential for chaos and destruction is very high. -The capability to find and eliminate targets will likely precede the ability to make ethical decisions, and human ethical oversight of the kill decisions will be reduced especially if the drones are scaled up For more on this check out http://autonomousweapons.org/ http://autonomousweapons.org/

stillsut 8y ago
I don't see how the desire simply for defense can avoid developing autonomy in micro-drone interceptors: Oh no, a bad guy drone is flying right towards the pope! Deploy the autonomous interception drone to stop it. No way a human pilot can conceivably defend against this type threat. Which means we need autonomy to protect, and that does lead to the dual-use dilemma.

dustinmoorenet 8y ago

Imagine French or Russian drones flying around remote parts of the US taking out targets that have been classified as criminal by that particular government. And then imagine your family lives in the same remote area. No one should be happy this is happening anywhere in the world.

greyman 8y ago

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? I wouldn't use the word evil, but I feel it is inappropriate, since Google is a global company. We should be more precise, it is working with the military of one specific country, and developing weapons for one specific country (U.S.). I am also an user of Google services, which also collect my personal data to provide me with more personalized experience. Ok. But what if, hypothetically, a war will break out, and army of my country will fight against U.S. army, which is helped by Google? It just doesn't feel right.

gr__or 8y ago

From outside the US (which is where I'm from) the US military doesn't look very benevolent. Do I want my data to be used to help causes I believe to be harmful to human life? No! It's that simple.

ghein 8y ago
Then shouldn't you be morally opposed to using the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency network? Or the Global Positioning System where the primary purpose is to position nuclear and conventional weapons globally on Chinese and Russian forces? Not to mention abhorring the use of semi-conductors that were created solely for the purposes of the US Department of Defense? Be consistent!
- gr__or 8y ago
  So I have to cheer for coups and the desctruction of the Middle East because I appreciate the Internet & GPS? That's not consistent, that's lacking nuance. On the spectrum of things the US military does, I see the drone program closer to the former than the latter.