4 ms·

This _is_ a very valuable action logically let alone morally. In the next decades either we resolve to mitigate this "us or them" mentality on this earth, or pu

This _is_ a very valuable action logically let alone morally. In the next decades either we resolve to mitigate this "us or them" mentality on this earth, or pure physics and math will resolve to see the end of the civilization as we know it. Google is a US company yes, but with so many engineers from all over the world and customers from every corner of the world, who is "them" for a Google employee really? And before you say so, I know this is how things(power dynamics, etc.) work today. That is exactly why this kind of movement towards a change is good and needed.

menacingly 8y ago
For Google, "Us" is the government that could in a pinch just grab the damned technology and leave them with next to no recourse, and "Them" is the governments who can't. Hopefully, if you're choosing to work for a company, you understand that you're at least implicitly adopting those definitions, and that you may find the licensing requirements of your work hastily restructured in an emergency situation.
- lazysheepherd 8y ago
  I do not claim scenario you proposed is not likely, but submitting to what harms you will only increase the harm and abuse over time. Standing against will make it less and less likely, over a long period of time. It is just like the fear of darkness. As long as you avoid the darkness, your fear will escalate. I acknowledge that the safest condition for me, my loved ones and next generations is not the one which has draconian governments, one-button-away nuclear war and killer drones.
sdenton4 8y ago
Lemme just underline this. Google engineers come from all over the world, and Google products are built to serve people all over the world. The Googlers opposed to Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. Preemptive lazy answers for lazy replies: Companies only exist to increase stockholder value: Some of us hold ourselves to a higher standard. Improved drone efficiency is better for everyone: hahahaha.
- 394549 8y ago
  > Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. I think that's a mischaracterization that's important to correct in the name of accuracy: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project-maven-pentagon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project...: > The polarized debate about Google and the military may leave out some nuances. Better analysis of drone imagery could reduce civilian casualties by improving operators’ ability to find and recognize terrorists. Also, a lack of "AI"-based image analysis hasn't stopped the US military from carrying out airstrikes with drones, and denying them better analysis tools is unlikely to cause them to reduce their frequency. The US military tries to avoid civilian casualties while still performing its mission, so giving it the tools to do so could arguably prevent civilian noncombatant deaths.
  - Digit-Al 8y ago
    I could very well be wrong, but I believe the statement these people were making is that they did not want to work on technology that kills people. It doesn't really matter if the work they would be doing would be to make it kill less 'good' people and more 'bad' people, they just don't want to work on stuff that kills people.
  - sdenton4 8y ago
    Sorta like how increasing surgical strikes in Vietnam will end the war faster and save thousands of lives? These sorts of arguments come up constantly in these discussions, and are laughable. More efficient targeting just means more strikes. And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway...
    - 394549 8y ago
      > Sorta like how increasing surgical strikes in Vietnam will end the war faster and save thousands of lives? Maybe not the former, but certainly the latter if it meant a reduction in alternatives like carpet bombing, etc. In World War II, the military would drop thousands of bombs over a wide area in the hope that a few would land on a German ball bearing factory. Now that they have more precise weapons, they don't need to do that anymore to accomplish similar missions. If the military feels it needs to smash something small, they'll use a big, oversize hammer if they don't have a small one available. They don't give up and go home. > More efficient targeting just means more strikes. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how you could reasonably be so certain about that. > And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway... As is de rigueur for military targeting.

menacingly 8y ago

For Google, "Us" is the government that could in a pinch just grab the damned technology and leave them with next to no recourse, and "Them" is the governments who can't. Hopefully, if you're choosing to work for a company, you understand that you're at least implicitly adopting those definitions, and that you may find the licensing requirements of your work hastily restructured in an emergency situation.

lazysheepherd 8y ago
I do not claim scenario you proposed is not likely, but submitting to what harms you will only increase the harm and abuse over time. Standing against will make it less and less likely, over a long period of time. It is just like the fear of darkness. As long as you avoid the darkness, your fear will escalate. I acknowledge that the safest condition for me, my loved ones and next generations is not the one which has draconian governments, one-button-away nuclear war and killer drones.

sdenton4 8y ago

Lemme just underline this. Google engineers come from all over the world, and Google products are built to serve people all over the world. The Googlers opposed to Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. Preemptive lazy answers for lazy replies: Companies only exist to increase stockholder value: Some of us hold ourselves to a higher standard. Improved drone efficiency is better for everyone: hahahaha.

394549 8y ago
> Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. I think that's a mischaracterization that's important to correct in the name of accuracy: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project-maven-pentagon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project...: > The polarized debate about Google and the military may leave out some nuances. Better analysis of drone imagery could reduce civilian casualties by improving operators’ ability to find and recognize terrorists. Also, a lack of "AI"-based image analysis hasn't stopped the US military from carrying out airstrikes with drones, and denying them better analysis tools is unlikely to cause them to reduce their frequency. The US military tries to avoid civilian casualties while still performing its mission, so giving it the tools to do so could arguably prevent civilian noncombatant deaths.
- Digit-Al 8y ago
  I could very well be wrong, but I believe the statement these people were making is that they did not want to work on technology that kills people. It doesn't really matter if the work they would be doing would be to make it kill less 'good' people and more 'bad' people, they just don't want to work on stuff that kills people.
- sdenton4 8y ago
  Sorta like how increasing surgical strikes in Vietnam will end the war faster and save thousands of lives? These sorts of arguments come up constantly in these discussions, and are laughable. More efficient targeting just means more strikes. And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway...
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Sorta like how increasing surgical strikes in Vietnam will end the war faster and save thousands of lives? Maybe not the former, but certainly the latter if it meant a reduction in alternatives like carpet bombing, etc. In World War II, the military would drop thousands of bombs over a wide area in the hope that a few would land on a German ball bearing factory. Now that they have more precise weapons, they don't need to do that anymore to accomplish similar missions. If the military feels it needs to smash something small, they'll use a big, oversize hammer if they don't have a small one available. They don't give up and go home. > More efficient targeting just means more strikes. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how you could reasonably be so certain about that. > And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway... As is de rigueur for military targeting.