4 ms·

"Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" Google, an already known to be duplicitous company, changed its policy to maintain its workforce at the e

by rmk 8y ago

"Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" Google, an already known to be duplicitous company, changed its policy to maintain its workforce at the expense of US national interests. That's certainly something to be wary about, as a member of the public.

joshuamorton 8y ago
You didn't address the main point of my comment, so I'll ask again more directly: are you suggesting that the government create regulation that compels companies, (and thus individuals) to do work on military technology that it deems relevant to national interests? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?
- rmk 8y ago
  What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"? I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected. The connection is the hubris that enables Google to benefit from public largesse while simultaneously believing itself to be superior to it (and by extension, the public). Like it or not, Google has benefited immensely from research facilitated/instigated by DARPA, DoD etc. which were all military technologies (GPS, internet, Grand Challenge). But now, it has serious qualms about AI that enables civilian areas to be identified in conflict zones (by its own admission).
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    >itself to be superior to it I'm still confused as to how "we don't want to work on systems that kill people" is in any way "superiority". In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population. You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public. That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves. Hence my continued confusion.
    - rmk 8y ago
      In my comments, I repeatedly say that individuals should not be compelled to work on military technology, except in times of war. Hardly confusing. > In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population. I do not know how one could read that into my comments. At this point, I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse. Google doesn't just use this technology like you or me, it benefits, i.e., enriches itself immensely to the tune of billions of dollars every quarter! It also becomes much more powerful and further embeds itself into the lives of ordinary people in this process. > You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public. I do not think that description applies to much of the public, which lives outside the SV bubble. But I will concede that this is something that's debatable. > That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves. Here, again, you are twisting my words and ascribing meaning that simply doesn't follow from what I have said. I am definitely saying that Google the corporation and leadership in Silicon Valley suffers from the hubris that they can simultaneously benefit (i.e., make billions of dollars) off the fruits of research that's quite explicitly geared toward military technology, and they can rebuff those very same benefactors without consequences (and while holding the moral high ground). These benefactors are Government agencies, that exist to carry out the will of the people (nominally, at least).
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        >Hardly confusing. Except that much of what you're saying implies that you do think these companies should be regulated in a way that forces them to do this. Or at least, if that's not what you're saying, then you seem to be insinuating a whole lot for no apparent purpose. This is why I'm confused. Your stated words and actions (ie the rest of your words) don't appear to match up. >Google doesn't just use this technology like you or me, it benefits, Are you suggesting that you and I don't benefit immensely from the internet? If I'm understand you correctly, you're saying that it is unethical for an entity to benefit from another entity without supporting it. That is to say, its unethical for Google to benefit from the military's technology without also supporting the military. Ignoring, for a moment that there's a whole host of debate on whether or not that's even true to begin with, such an objection applies equally to any individual as well as Google. I, personally, benefit greatly from military technology. Is it unethical for me to refuse to work on drone warfare? It seems odd for you to say yes to that, but on the other hand, that's basically what you're saying about Google. >I do not think that description applies to much of the public, which lives outside the SV bubble. But I will concede that this is something that's debatable. I would consider more than a third of the US population to be "much of" [1]. > suffers from the hubris that they can simultaneously benefit (i.e., make billions of dollars) off the fruits of research that's quite explicitly geared toward military technology, and they can rebuff those very same benefactors without consequences But again, except perhaps in terms of scale, this applies to anyone. You and I both benefit, significantly, from military technology, both in terms of safety and quality of life. Yet you've stated that we should not be compelled to give back. Why should Google (or any other corporation, which again, is really just a set of individuals) be treated differently? [1]: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-strikes-118372 https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-st...
rmk 8y ago
People should never be compelled to work on producing weapons or munitions, except in times of war. Google, specifically, like Facebook, should be invited to explain itself and generally describe its activities a bit more transparently for the public to see. At this point Google is effectively a utility, so there's plenty of good reasons to regulate it like one. Right now, it has benefited from almost no oversight and has grown a bit too cocky and self-righteous. Silicon Valley CEOs need to be cut down to size. Almost no other industry has this level of smugness and self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people. Here is a quote by Louis Brandeis, an erstwhile Justice of the Supreme Court, that pretty much captures what I have to say: Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"? I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected.

by rmk 8y ago

joshuamorton 8y ago

You didn't address the main point of my comment, so I'll ask again more directly: are you suggesting that the government create regulation that compels companies, (and thus individuals) to do work on military technology that it deems relevant to national interests? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?

rmk 8y ago
What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"? I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected. The connection is the hubris that enables Google to benefit from public largesse while simultaneously believing itself to be superior to it (and by extension, the public). Like it or not, Google has benefited immensely from research facilitated/instigated by DARPA, DoD etc. which were all military technologies (GPS, internet, Grand Challenge). But now, it has serious qualms about AI that enables civilian areas to be identified in conflict zones (by its own admission).
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  >itself to be superior to it I'm still confused as to how "we don't want to work on systems that kill people" is in any way "superiority". In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population. You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public. That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves. Hence my continued confusion.
  - rmk 8y ago
    In my comments, I repeatedly say that individuals should not be compelled to work on military technology, except in times of war. Hardly confusing. > In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population. I do not know how one could read that into my comments. At this point, I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse. Google doesn't just use this technology like you or me, it benefits, i.e., enriches itself immensely to the tune of billions of dollars every quarter! It also becomes much more powerful and further embeds itself into the lives of ordinary people in this process. > You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public. I do not think that description applies to much of the public, which lives outside the SV bubble. But I will concede that this is something that's debatable. > That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves. Here, again, you are twisting my words and ascribing meaning that simply doesn't follow from what I have said. I am definitely saying that Google the corporation and leadership in Silicon Valley suffers from the hubris that they can simultaneously benefit (i.e., make billions of dollars) off the fruits of research that's quite explicitly geared toward military technology, and they can rebuff those very same benefactors without consequences (and while holding the moral high ground). These benefactors are Government agencies, that exist to carry out the will of the people (nominally, at least).
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      >Hardly confusing. Except that much of what you're saying implies that you do think these companies should be regulated in a way that forces them to do this. Or at least, if that's not what you're saying, then you seem to be insinuating a whole lot for no apparent purpose. This is why I'm confused. Your stated words and actions (ie the rest of your words) don't appear to match up. >Google doesn't just use this technology like you or me, it benefits, Are you suggesting that you and I don't benefit immensely from the internet? If I'm understand you correctly, you're saying that it is unethical for an entity to benefit from another entity without supporting it. That is to say, its unethical for Google to benefit from the military's technology without also supporting the military. Ignoring, for a moment that there's a whole host of debate on whether or not that's even true to begin with, such an objection applies equally to any individual as well as Google. I, personally, benefit greatly from military technology. Is it unethical for me to refuse to work on drone warfare? It seems odd for you to say yes to that, but on the other hand, that's basically what you're saying about Google. >I do not think that description applies to much of the public, which lives outside the SV bubble. But I will concede that this is something that's debatable. I would consider more than a third of the US population to be "much of" [1]. > suffers from the hubris that they can simultaneously benefit (i.e., make billions of dollars) off the fruits of research that's quite explicitly geared toward military technology, and they can rebuff those very same benefactors without consequences But again, except perhaps in terms of scale, this applies to anyone. You and I both benefit, significantly, from military technology, both in terms of safety and quality of life. Yet you've stated that we should not be compelled to give back. Why should Google (or any other corporation, which again, is really just a set of individuals) be treated differently? [1]: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-strikes-118372 https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-st...

rmk 8y ago

People should never be compelled to work on producing weapons or munitions, except in times of war. Google, specifically, like Facebook, should be invited to explain itself and generally describe its activities a bit more transparently for the public to see. At this point Google is effectively a utility, so there's plenty of good reasons to regulate it like one. Right now, it has benefited from almost no oversight and has grown a bit too cocky and self-righteous. Silicon Valley CEOs need to be cut down to size. Almost no other industry has this level of smugness and self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people. Here is a quote by Louis Brandeis, an erstwhile Justice of the Supreme Court, that pretty much captures what I have to say: Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

joshuamorton 8y ago
What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"? I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected.