7 ms·

I would be heart broken to learn that my work was used to facilitate killing. I empathize for the developers involved; I hope those that feel as I do find brig

I would be heart broken to learn that my work was used to facilitate killing. I empathize for the developers involved; I hope those that feel as I do find brighter opportunities.

merlincorey 8y ago
This particular system seems to be focused on our soldiers' "lethality, mobility and situational awareness." So while the "lethality" certainly is all about facilitating killing, I would say the other points are at least somewhat about lifesaving for our troops.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Dead soldiers aren't very lethal, so any distinction between the two seems rather arbitrary. Technology that helps soldiers survive necessarily helps soldiers kill. But this whole topic of "for the military" or "facilitating killing" is rather arbitrary. If you work on a smartphone app for hailing taxis, that's probably not going to be plausibly military. But what if you work in a steel mill? You help in the production of steel that is necessary to create buildings and bridges, but also military ships and tanks and just about everything else. Is the production of steel a part of the military-industrial complex? Could the military-industrial complex continue operating without steel? Definitely not, the production of steel is essential to the military, yet it seems a bit strange for producers of steel to lose sleep over what their steel is used for. But actually, let's go back to that taxi app. Most military personnel aren't in warzones, virtually all of them own smartphones, and a great many of them may be using ride hailing apps regularly. If such apps increase their personal efficiency, perhaps letting them get to work faster. If a drone operator in Utah uses your app to get to work hung over after a hard night of drinking, does that mean your taxi app is helping to kill people?
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    What about folks who work on digital skinner boxes or dark patterned tech, such as, ad networks, social media, free-to-gamble games, anything Android, gig-economy apps, or the like. People in those industries don't even have the fig-leaf of "national defense" to help them sleep at night. For them it is only about money, t-shirts, and free food. Who cares how many lives they ruin along the way. They are true sociopaths, though inexplicably they would feel horrible if their work helped save a 19 year-old soldier's life or helped enable shooters recognize an incorrect target before harming innocents.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Fully agree. Microsoft at least is otherwise relatively clean since they're best known for productivity software (although we could dive into what that productivity is actually accomplishing..) but when they start doing shit like promoting Candy Crush, I think that's well over the line.
pnw_hazor 8y ago
What if your work helped reduce the amount of innocent civilians or soldiers that are killed in war? I guess we could always go back to the good old daze when advanced tech or computers were not used in weapons systems. I wasn't around back then, but it sure seems like there sure were more innocent people killed in the bygone days of software-free weapons systems. High-tech weapon systems save lives. But I am pretty sure you already know that.
- bassman9000 8y ago
  Another example: the only technology, today, being realistic, to actually make an impact in CO2 reduction, is nuclear. And nuclear was born as a weapon. In a race to beat the enemy, who would have got the technology soon after.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  No, we should clearly go back to the days of low tech seige warfare, when battles were won by slowly starving people until they gave up.
- paganel 8y ago
  > High-tech weapon systems save lives. But I am pretty sure you already know that. Not the OP, but what the high-tech weapon systems do (among other things, like killing innocent people attending weddings in remote parts of Afghanistan or Yemen) is to disengage the killers (i.e. the people making the decision to shoot, sometime from thousands and thousands of miles away) from their acts, as those doing the killing bear almost no risks of getting killed in retaliation and they also don't get to see the distorted limbs of those they get to kill. As such, the decision to make the kill becomes more and more easy and more and more random, because it doesn't have almost any effects on those who are responsible for said killings. This is a very, very sad state of affairs for us, as a species, I mean, the fact that we've managed to make the act of killing to have almost no moral consequences on those that actually carry said killings.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Drone pilots are not disengaged from the psychological and moral trauma of war. > Some say that the drone war has driven them over the edge. "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile? How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Heather Linebaugh, a former drone imagery analyst, wrote in the Guardian. "When you are exposed to it over and over again it becomes like a small video, embedded in your head, forever on repeat, causing psychological pain and suffering that many people will hopefully never experience." > "It was horrifying to know how easy it was. I felt like a coward because I was halfway across the world and the guy never even knew I was there,” Bryant told KNPR Radio in Nevada. "I felt like I was haunted by a legion of the dead. My physical health was gone, my mental health was crumbled. I was in so much pain I was ready to eat a bullet myself." https://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/a_chilling_new_post_traumatic_stress_disorder_why_drone_pilots_are_quitting_in_record_numbers_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/a_chilling_new_post_traumat...
leftyted 8y ago
I wouldn't care. Are the designers of TCP/IP responsible for everyone whose death was assisted by the internet? Are Orville and Wilbur burning in Hell for all the people who were killed by things dropped from planes? And God help whichever unfortunate human invented the wheel. Sorry for my tone, but I find this perspective naive and annoyingly sanctimonious. I'm making tools. People can use them for whatever. I hope no one murderers anyone (unless they have a really good reason) but I'm only responsible for making sure I don't murder anyone, and so far I'm doing okay.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  If you're working on a technology that you know is created in contract with the military, is that not concerning?
  - influx 8y ago
    What's your line? Do you work on contracts for police? What about the United Nations? Any government contract at all, including local? I can find examples of all of them acting against populations and causing harm, as well for good.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      My line is merely understanding and allowing others to protest things they find hurtful and believing they are valid in doing so. I never said I shared this view and I'm concerned you took my words so far from their face value.
      - chillacy 8y ago
        > If you're working on a technology that you know is created in contract with the military, is that not concerning? Implies to me that I should feel bad morally. Just my reading of it, but if lots of people are reading it that way as well, you may want to work on the wording if people are attributing more than you intended.
  - 8y ago
cududa 8y ago
I feel like I’m living in the twilight zone seeing how far your comments been downvoted and the responses. I totally support individuals rights to work on these kind of tools; and I totally support people demanding their work not be co-opted for lethal purposes
tomohawk 8y ago
The Nazis used the latest card punch tech to track people and facilitate the mass killing of people. Joseph Stalin famously used the telephone in the middle of the night to make calls leading to the mass murder of thousands during his reign. Churchill and Roosevelt used the first application of spread spectrum technology to securely communicate. This led to the deaths of millions of Axis personnel. Are all of these equivalent? I would be actually horrified to find out after the fact that I did not do all I could do to stop monsters such as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. If something I build could stop someone like that, I'm all for it.
- gdy 8y ago
  How about stopping monsters from doing things like My Lai massacre? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
  - tomohawk 8y ago
    Do you actually think there is a moral equivalence between actions directed be Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc, and an incident that was not directed as a general policy, and was in fact against policy, and which in fact sickened the responders?
    - gdy 8y ago
      Yeah, right, an incident. How is that smell of napalm in the morning?
dba7dba 8y ago
Roads/oil/education/internet/mining/etc can be and used for military purposes. Where do you want to draw the line?

I would be heart broken to learn that my work was used to facilitate killing. I empathize for the developers involved; I hope those that feel as I do find brighter opportunities.

merlincorey 8y ago

This particular system seems to be focused on our soldiers' "lethality, mobility and situational awareness." So while the "lethality" certainly is all about facilitating killing, I would say the other points are at least somewhat about lifesaving for our troops.

darkpuma 8y ago
Dead soldiers aren't very lethal, so any distinction between the two seems rather arbitrary. Technology that helps soldiers survive necessarily helps soldiers kill. But this whole topic of "for the military" or "facilitating killing" is rather arbitrary. If you work on a smartphone app for hailing taxis, that's probably not going to be plausibly military. But what if you work in a steel mill? You help in the production of steel that is necessary to create buildings and bridges, but also military ships and tanks and just about everything else. Is the production of steel a part of the military-industrial complex? Could the military-industrial complex continue operating without steel? Definitely not, the production of steel is essential to the military, yet it seems a bit strange for producers of steel to lose sleep over what their steel is used for. But actually, let's go back to that taxi app. Most military personnel aren't in warzones, virtually all of them own smartphones, and a great many of them may be using ride hailing apps regularly. If such apps increase their personal efficiency, perhaps letting them get to work faster. If a drone operator in Utah uses your app to get to work hung over after a hard night of drinking, does that mean your taxi app is helping to kill people?
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  What about folks who work on digital skinner boxes or dark patterned tech, such as, ad networks, social media, free-to-gamble games, anything Android, gig-economy apps, or the like. People in those industries don't even have the fig-leaf of "national defense" to help them sleep at night. For them it is only about money, t-shirts, and free food. Who cares how many lives they ruin along the way. They are true sociopaths, though inexplicably they would feel horrible if their work helped save a 19 year-old soldier's life or helped enable shooters recognize an incorrect target before harming innocents.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Fully agree. Microsoft at least is otherwise relatively clean since they're best known for productivity software (although we could dive into what that productivity is actually accomplishing..) but when they start doing shit like promoting Candy Crush, I think that's well over the line.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

What if your work helped reduce the amount of innocent civilians or soldiers that are killed in war? I guess we could always go back to the good old daze when advanced tech or computers were not used in weapons systems. I wasn't around back then, but it sure seems like there sure were more innocent people killed in the bygone days of software-free weapons systems. High-tech weapon systems save lives. But I am pretty sure you already know that.

bassman9000 8y ago
Another example: the only technology, today, being realistic, to actually make an impact in CO2 reduction, is nuclear. And nuclear was born as a weapon. In a race to beat the enemy, who would have got the technology soon after.
humanrebar 8y ago
No, we should clearly go back to the days of low tech seige warfare, when battles were won by slowly starving people until they gave up.
paganel 8y ago
> High-tech weapon systems save lives. But I am pretty sure you already know that. Not the OP, but what the high-tech weapon systems do (among other things, like killing innocent people attending weddings in remote parts of Afghanistan or Yemen) is to disengage the killers (i.e. the people making the decision to shoot, sometime from thousands and thousands of miles away) from their acts, as those doing the killing bear almost no risks of getting killed in retaliation and they also don't get to see the distorted limbs of those they get to kill. As such, the decision to make the kill becomes more and more easy and more and more random, because it doesn't have almost any effects on those who are responsible for said killings. This is a very, very sad state of affairs for us, as a species, I mean, the fact that we've managed to make the act of killing to have almost no moral consequences on those that actually carry said killings.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Drone pilots are not disengaged from the psychological and moral trauma of war. > Some say that the drone war has driven them over the edge. "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile? How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Heather Linebaugh, a former drone imagery analyst, wrote in the Guardian. "When you are exposed to it over and over again it becomes like a small video, embedded in your head, forever on repeat, causing psychological pain and suffering that many people will hopefully never experience." > "It was horrifying to know how easy it was. I felt like a coward because I was halfway across the world and the guy never even knew I was there,” Bryant told KNPR Radio in Nevada. "I felt like I was haunted by a legion of the dead. My physical health was gone, my mental health was crumbled. I was in so much pain I was ready to eat a bullet myself." https://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/a_chilling_new_post_traumatic_stress_disorder_why_drone_pilots_are_quitting_in_record_numbers_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/a_chilling_new_post_traumat...

leftyted 8y ago

I wouldn't care. Are the designers of TCP/IP responsible for everyone whose death was assisted by the internet? Are Orville and Wilbur burning in Hell for all the people who were killed by things dropped from planes? And God help whichever unfortunate human invented the wheel. Sorry for my tone, but I find this perspective naive and annoyingly sanctimonious. I'm making tools. People can use them for whatever. I hope no one murderers anyone (unless they have a really good reason) but I'm only responsible for making sure I don't murder anyone, and so far I'm doing okay.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
If you're working on a technology that you know is created in contract with the military, is that not concerning?
- influx 8y ago
  What's your line? Do you work on contracts for police? What about the United Nations? Any government contract at all, including local? I can find examples of all of them acting against populations and causing harm, as well for good.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    My line is merely understanding and allowing others to protest things they find hurtful and believing they are valid in doing so. I never said I shared this view and I'm concerned you took my words so far from their face value.
    - chillacy 8y ago
      > If you're working on a technology that you know is created in contract with the military, is that not concerning? Implies to me that I should feel bad morally. Just my reading of it, but if lots of people are reading it that way as well, you may want to work on the wording if people are attributing more than you intended.
- 8y ago

cududa 8y ago

I feel like I’m living in the twilight zone seeing how far your comments been downvoted and the responses. I totally support individuals rights to work on these kind of tools; and I totally support people demanding their work not be co-opted for lethal purposes

tomohawk 8y ago

The Nazis used the latest card punch tech to track people and facilitate the mass killing of people. Joseph Stalin famously used the telephone in the middle of the night to make calls leading to the mass murder of thousands during his reign. Churchill and Roosevelt used the first application of spread spectrum technology to securely communicate. This led to the deaths of millions of Axis personnel. Are all of these equivalent? I would be actually horrified to find out after the fact that I did not do all I could do to stop monsters such as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. If something I build could stop someone like that, I'm all for it.

gdy 8y ago
How about stopping monsters from doing things like My Lai massacre? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
- tomohawk 8y ago
  Do you actually think there is a moral equivalence between actions directed be Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc, and an incident that was not directed as a general policy, and was in fact against policy, and which in fact sickened the responders?
  - gdy 8y ago
    Yeah, right, an incident. How is that smell of napalm in the morning?

dba7dba 8y ago

Roads/oil/education/internet/mining/etc can be and used for military purposes. Where do you want to draw the line?