5 ms·

These are all highly opinionated statements, but: - If you're American, you should support Google developing technology for the US military. - If you're human

These are all highly opinionated statements, but: - If you're American, you should support Google developing technology for the US military. - If you're human, you should support a foreign policy that only considers military action as a last resort. - If you're human, you should support early, aggressive, global regulation of the military applications of AI and drones. We made this mistake with nuclear. We leveled Hiroshima, we leveled Nagasaki, we fueled decades of animosity between the Soviets and the West that still plagues the world today. We need to do better next time. The biggest abuser might be the US again but it could just as easily be China. - If you're human, you should support regulation that forbids Google from using your personal for military applications without your express and informed consent. Substitute Google for any other tech giant's name.

murukesh_s 8y ago
> - If you're American, you should support Google developing technology for the US military. Why? Americans are not humans?
- apatters 8y ago
  I meant to imply that Americans (or citizens of any nation) have certain interests that not all humans share, but in general, we're a lot closer than we think.
  - aninhumer 8y ago
    That still assumes that all Americans are American Nationalists, i.e. they prefer the prosperity of people living in America at the expense of others. I don't think that's necessarily true and I definitely don't think they "should" believe that.
bonesss 8y ago
> ... you should support early, aggressive, global regulation of the military applications of AI and drones. The history of global regulations on the military application of useful military technologies is not too impressive. The second a shooting war breaks out those rules will be forgotten, giving a huge head-start to anyone shady enough to ignore them wholesale. "AI" has been used in war since WW2. Strapping an IED onto a quadcopter isn't a shocking idea, and the economics of 1000+ stealth-killer UAVs vs 1 not-that-stealth Navy Boat are pretty undeniable over time... AIs and Drones are inevitably coming to warfare -- they're here already. Economic unions that make warfare unthinkable may be a better long term bet (thanks, Trump!). > We leveled Hiroshima, we leveled Nagasaki, we fueled decades of animosity between the Soviets and the West that still plagues the world today Mmmm that animosity was not created by bombing two Japanese cities, among many, with a new weapon type. That animosity was a freight train that could have kept WWII going another decade, and there was a real problem of how that war might look for our side had a resurgent Russia conquered Japan early in. They took Manchuria just a few days after the second bomb, IIRC, so their threat was far from hypothetical. Those bombs were sending a clear and distinct message to the Soviets. It worked. I'd rather have animosity than a nuclear WWIII.
- apatters 8y ago
  > The history of global regulations on the military application of useful military technologies is not too impressive. I don't think that's true at all. Since WWII we've been quite successful at reducing the use and proliferation of destructive military technologies through treaties. Certainly they don't work 100% of the time and they work in tandem with other forces but they've been a key part of the solution. See https://www.armscontrol.org/treaties https://www.armscontrol.org/treaties
- Lennie 8y ago
  > The history of global regulations on the military application of useful military technologies is not too impressive. So far we've been able to prevent a lot of use of bio weapons. Many have said they want to do the same with AI and have already started doing that.

murukesh_s 8y ago

> - If you're American, you should support Google developing technology for the US military. Why? Americans are not humans?

apatters 8y ago
I meant to imply that Americans (or citizens of any nation) have certain interests that not all humans share, but in general, we're a lot closer than we think.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  That still assumes that all Americans are American Nationalists, i.e. they prefer the prosperity of people living in America at the expense of others. I don't think that's necessarily true and I definitely don't think they "should" believe that.

bonesss 8y ago

> ... you should support early, aggressive, global regulation of the military applications of AI and drones. The history of global regulations on the military application of useful military technologies is not too impressive. The second a shooting war breaks out those rules will be forgotten, giving a huge head-start to anyone shady enough to ignore them wholesale. "AI" has been used in war since WW2. Strapping an IED onto a quadcopter isn't a shocking idea, and the economics of 1000+ stealth-killer UAVs vs 1 not-that-stealth Navy Boat are pretty undeniable over time... AIs and Drones are inevitably coming to warfare -- they're here already. Economic unions that make warfare unthinkable may be a better long term bet (thanks, Trump!). > We leveled Hiroshima, we leveled Nagasaki, we fueled decades of animosity between the Soviets and the West that still plagues the world today Mmmm that animosity was not created by bombing two Japanese cities, among many, with a new weapon type. That animosity was a freight train that could have kept WWII going another decade, and there was a real problem of how that war might look for our side had a resurgent Russia conquered Japan early in. They took Manchuria just a few days after the second bomb, IIRC, so their threat was far from hypothetical. Those bombs were sending a clear and distinct message to the Soviets. It worked. I'd rather have animosity than a nuclear WWIII.

apatters 8y ago
> The history of global regulations on the military application of useful military technologies is not too impressive. I don't think that's true at all. Since WWII we've been quite successful at reducing the use and proliferation of destructive military technologies through treaties. Certainly they don't work 100% of the time and they work in tandem with other forces but they've been a key part of the solution. See https://www.armscontrol.org/treaties https://www.armscontrol.org/treaties
Lennie 8y ago
> The history of global regulations on the military application of useful military technologies is not too impressive. So far we've been able to prevent a lot of use of bio weapons. Many have said they want to do the same with AI and have already started doing that.