4 ms·

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

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.
jimbofisher1 8y ago
Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me. If you build better recognition systems for drones they will be better able to mitigate collateral damage. Is this not exactly what you want?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me" Because it's for the US military. They have an unbelievably shitty track record in not hitting civilians. It was shitty under Obama, and it's gotten even shittier under Trump. And the issue isn't the ability to target better; it's that the military simply does not care.
  - jimbofisher1 8y ago
    That may be your opinion but I can assure you it is not accurate. Your hysteria is clouding your judgement.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      It's not accurate that the military has a terrible track record regarding civilian casualties? Go ahead and offer your proof to the contrary, then.
      - _dps 8y ago
        I don't know if it's true or not, but based on a little thinking about availability bias and publication bias suggest it's plausible. No one is likely to write about "targets hit exactly as planned, no collateral damage" and even if they do as a puff piece for the military we're unlikely to remember that. In contrast, every single mistargeting is plausibly worldwide news and our brains are wired to remember such things. To be clear, I don't have any hard data either way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's true given the asymmetry of typical cognitive bias in evaluating such a claim. The folk version of this is that you "only ever hear about the CIA's mistakes and not of their successes".
      - 8y ago

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.

jimbofisher1 8y ago

Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me. If you build better recognition systems for drones they will be better able to mitigate collateral damage. Is this not exactly what you want?

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me" Because it's for the US military. They have an unbelievably shitty track record in not hitting civilians. It was shitty under Obama, and it's gotten even shittier under Trump. And the issue isn't the ability to target better; it's that the military simply does not care.
- jimbofisher1 8y ago
  That may be your opinion but I can assure you it is not accurate. Your hysteria is clouding your judgement.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    It's not accurate that the military has a terrible track record regarding civilian casualties? Go ahead and offer your proof to the contrary, then.
    - _dps 8y ago
      I don't know if it's true or not, but based on a little thinking about availability bias and publication bias suggest it's plausible. No one is likely to write about "targets hit exactly as planned, no collateral damage" and even if they do as a puff piece for the military we're unlikely to remember that. In contrast, every single mistargeting is plausibly worldwide news and our brains are wired to remember such things. To be clear, I don't have any hard data either way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's true given the asymmetry of typical cognitive bias in evaluating such a claim. The folk version of this is that you "only ever hear about the CIA's mistakes and not of their successes".
    - 8y ago