3 ms·

The United States balances innovation with ethics ? The people of Hiroshima or the victims of agent orange might have something to say about that.

michannne 6y ago
How about we look at that quote with a bit of nuance?
- alxlaz 6y ago
  I think that quote could use a bit of nuance itself (albeit, yeah, maybe bringing up Hiroshima like that does set off Godwin's Law alarm). China can develop datasets on millions (billions?) of people and, yes, given the current state of AI research, that can give them an edge, and I am, too, of the opinion that it's better to not have this edge than to develop it at such an expense in human lives and well-being. So where is the scientific answer to that? Is there any serious additional research effort, and more industrial effort, going into models that are less reliant on training data, for example? What industries are trying to become less dependent on massive data collection, and on massively data-driven models? You can still get heaps of money with a product that can be aptly described as "it does linear regression with sugar on top and it'll tell you great things if you throw more than 100GB of tables at it". Selling an analytics SaaS that sucks up data from every imaginable data source to tell you things about your Google Analytics graphs is still a pretty profitable business. On the other hand, serious researchers in academia, and a lot of talented engineers, are struggling to get funding for topics that do not have the magic words "machine learning", "data-driven", and "AI" in them, and they mostly go ignored because everything can be solved with enough data.
- thewarrior 6y ago
  I’m willing to hear your nuanced take on how America balances innovation with ethics. It’s the very same innovation that is used to wage wars that have destabilized whole regions and led to the deaths of millions. Or the same military force that is used to implicitly backstop dictators that have carried out some of the worst genocides of this century. I’m not sure this is what balancing ethics looks like. America is innovative. Sure. America is god gifts to humanity the most ethical and innovative civilization we couldn’t do without ? No.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  This is literally coming out of the military. I think the OP is spot on.
swinglock 6y ago
Do you actually think damages caused in actual wars are somehow comparable to those in peace time technical development? What do you really mean by that?
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  WWII advanced nuclear research, computing, electronics, and aerospace by decades within a few years. Was that a good thing? Was it a bad thing? Is there a definitive ethical answer to this question? There probably is - but not for this culture.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  DuPont developed Teflon, then made billions by taking it to market without developing a way to dispose of the toxic waste byproducts of the manufacturing process. They just dumped it into virgin streams in West Virginia. Then they avoided responsibility for the deaths they caused by spending millions in the us court system to reduce the damages payout to less than one years profits.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  This is comping directly from the DoD, so the military. And yes, the military uses peacetime to develop technologies to be used later in war to devastating effects.
redis_mlc 6y ago
The people of Hiroshima were building submarines and torpedos, supplying an Imperial Japan Naval base, and supporting a war that Japan declared on the United States. And wouldn't stop doing so until destroyed, whether with conventional or nuclear bombs.
- throwaway59054 6y ago
  Some Uighurs in Xinjiang committed multiple terrorist attacks in China. For a ten years period, China suffered around three terrorist attacks a year. The US even found thousands of Uighurs fighting for ISIS. By your logic, that justifies the de-radicalization centers.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    China is attempting to eradicate all religions within their borders, but I don't see what that has to do with a nation defending itself after a military attack by another country.
marcinzm 6y ago
>The people of Hiroshima You know what I found most fascinating about the Hiroshima memorial in Japan? They go on about how bad the bombing was but literally have a statement to the effect that if Japan was invaded they would have fought to the last man, woman and child. Millions would have died on both sides and the country would have been a wasteland. So unpleasant as it is, sometimes ethics does require the lesser of two evils as there is no good choice.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  There are reams of scholarship about how the bomb wasn’t necessary to end the war in the Pacific Theater. This was, in fact, the conclusion at the time of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey: > Bаsеd on а dеtаilеd invеstigаtion of аll thе fаcts, аnd supportеd by thе tеstimony of thе surviving Jаpаnеsе lеаdеrs involvеd, it is thе Survеy's opinion thаt cеrtаinly prior to 31 Dеcеmbеr 1945, аnd in аll probаbility prior to 1 Novеmbеr 1945, Jаpаn would hаvе surrеndеrеd еvеn if thе аtomic bombs hаd not bееn droppеd, еvеn if Russiа hаd not еntеrеd thе wаr, аnd еvеn if no invаsion hаd bееn plаnnеd or contеmplаtеd. Americans have invented this popular narrative about Hiroshima solely because it undergirds the fragile notion of “heroism” that country still clings to. Unnecessarily nuking a city that was at that point primarily women, children, and old people is anathema to the story we tell about ourselves, so we’ve simply decided it wasn’t so. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0020_SPANGRUD_STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_...
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Saying we knew something in hindsight given information not available to the decision makers at the time is a poor argument. Amazingly Truman didn't have the honest testimony of the Japanese leaders to make his choice on in 1945.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      Plenty of US military leaders advised against the bombing, prior to the strike, including Eisenhower. But we’re not speaking to legitimacy of hindsight views anyway, instead the lasting, incorrect assertion that it was necessary or justified, which you embraced in your first comment.

michannne 6y ago

How about we look at that quote with a bit of nuance?

alxlaz 6y ago
I think that quote could use a bit of nuance itself (albeit, yeah, maybe bringing up Hiroshima like that does set off Godwin's Law alarm). China can develop datasets on millions (billions?) of people and, yes, given the current state of AI research, that can give them an edge, and I am, too, of the opinion that it's better to not have this edge than to develop it at such an expense in human lives and well-being. So where is the scientific answer to that? Is there any serious additional research effort, and more industrial effort, going into models that are less reliant on training data, for example? What industries are trying to become less dependent on massive data collection, and on massively data-driven models? You can still get heaps of money with a product that can be aptly described as "it does linear regression with sugar on top and it'll tell you great things if you throw more than 100GB of tables at it". Selling an analytics SaaS that sucks up data from every imaginable data source to tell you things about your Google Analytics graphs is still a pretty profitable business. On the other hand, serious researchers in academia, and a lot of talented engineers, are struggling to get funding for topics that do not have the magic words "machine learning", "data-driven", and "AI" in them, and they mostly go ignored because everything can be solved with enough data.
thewarrior 6y ago
I’m willing to hear your nuanced take on how America balances innovation with ethics. It’s the very same innovation that is used to wage wars that have destabilized whole regions and led to the deaths of millions. Or the same military force that is used to implicitly backstop dictators that have carried out some of the worst genocides of this century. I’m not sure this is what balancing ethics looks like. America is innovative. Sure. America is god gifts to humanity the most ethical and innovative civilization we couldn’t do without ? No.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
This is literally coming out of the military. I think the OP is spot on.

swinglock 6y ago

Do you actually think damages caused in actual wars are somehow comparable to those in peace time technical development? What do you really mean by that?

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
WWII advanced nuclear research, computing, electronics, and aerospace by decades within a few years. Was that a good thing? Was it a bad thing? Is there a definitive ethical answer to this question? There probably is - but not for this culture.
wombatmobile 6y ago
DuPont developed Teflon, then made billions by taking it to market without developing a way to dispose of the toxic waste byproducts of the manufacturing process. They just dumped it into virgin streams in West Virginia. Then they avoided responsibility for the deaths they caused by spending millions in the us court system to reduce the damages payout to less than one years profits.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
This is comping directly from the DoD, so the military. And yes, the military uses peacetime to develop technologies to be used later in war to devastating effects.

redis_mlc 6y ago

The people of Hiroshima were building submarines and torpedos, supplying an Imperial Japan Naval base, and supporting a war that Japan declared on the United States. And wouldn't stop doing so until destroyed, whether with conventional or nuclear bombs.

throwaway59054 6y ago
Some Uighurs in Xinjiang committed multiple terrorist attacks in China. For a ten years period, China suffered around three terrorist attacks a year. The US even found thousands of Uighurs fighting for ISIS. By your logic, that justifies the de-radicalization centers.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  China is attempting to eradicate all religions within their borders, but I don't see what that has to do with a nation defending itself after a military attack by another country.

marcinzm 6y ago

>The people of Hiroshima You know what I found most fascinating about the Hiroshima memorial in Japan? They go on about how bad the bombing was but literally have a statement to the effect that if Japan was invaded they would have fought to the last man, woman and child. Millions would have died on both sides and the country would have been a wasteland. So unpleasant as it is, sometimes ethics does require the lesser of two evils as there is no good choice.

claudeganon 6y ago
There are reams of scholarship about how the bomb wasn’t necessary to end the war in the Pacific Theater. This was, in fact, the conclusion at the time of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey: > Bаsеd on а dеtаilеd invеstigаtion of аll thе fаcts, аnd supportеd by thе tеstimony of thе surviving Jаpаnеsе lеаdеrs involvеd, it is thе Survеy's opinion thаt cеrtаinly prior to 31 Dеcеmbеr 1945, аnd in аll probаbility prior to 1 Novеmbеr 1945, Jаpаn would hаvе surrеndеrеd еvеn if thе аtomic bombs hаd not bееn droppеd, еvеn if Russiа hаd not еntеrеd thе wаr, аnd еvеn if no invаsion hаd bееn plаnnеd or contеmplаtеd. Americans have invented this popular narrative about Hiroshima solely because it undergirds the fragile notion of “heroism” that country still clings to. Unnecessarily nuking a city that was at that point primarily women, children, and old people is anathema to the story we tell about ourselves, so we’ve simply decided it wasn’t so. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0020_SPANGRUD_STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_...
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Saying we knew something in hindsight given information not available to the decision makers at the time is a poor argument. Amazingly Truman didn't have the honest testimony of the Japanese leaders to make his choice on in 1945.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    Plenty of US military leaders advised against the bombing, prior to the strike, including Eisenhower. But we’re not speaking to legitimacy of hindsight views anyway, instead the lasting, incorrect assertion that it was necessary or justified, which you embraced in your first comment.