4 ms·
> some of the most capable scientists don’t want to work on weapons, so they can kid themselves that they are working on “energy”. This should be highlighted.
by dleslie 5y ago
> some of the most capable scientists don’t want to work on weapons, so they can kid themselves that they are working on “energy”.
This should be highlighted.
Anecdotally, I have a friend who worked at Macdonald-Detweiller on algorithms for handling the controlled descent of autonomously-guided aircraft when lacking propulsion and relying solely on gliding. She was horrified when I told her she was working on smart bomb guidance systems.
- neolog 5y agoWow, what did she think it was for?
- contingencies 5y agoClearly, delivering cuddles and cookies to the destitute. In a sense, we programmers who work on ML are just as guilty. It seems to be used primarily for for surveillance and reliably scalable automation of centralised control of industry and society.
- maccam94 5y agoNot OP, but it could also be used in engine-out situations on drones or de-orbiting satellites.
- kbelder 5y agoShe'll probably be suitably shocked again for the next guy that comes along and explains what she's really doing to her.
- Thorrez 5y agoWhat motivation is there for her to falsely say she's shocked?
- CRConrad 5y agoNot wanting to admit that she knows perfectly well what it is she is doing, seems to be the obvious explanation. Like, what else could it be; how could one not understand that this must be it?
- Thorrez 5y agoCouldn't she have just not told dleslie the details? dleslie said the friend gave dleslie many more details. If the friend was ashamed of what she was doing, I think it would have been much simpler for her to only say very briefly what she worked on, like flight control software, but not go into any details and say it's confidential. Intentionally giving a ton of details that will lead to dleslie figuring it out seems counter to her goal of not admitting what she's doing. Also her giving out this information sounds like it might actually be breaking confidentiality agreements. If you're not familiar with different types of bombs and weapons then you might not have even heard of a glide bomb before. And someone else suggested engine-out situations on drones or de-orbiting satellites.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y agoBy what deductive reasoning process, and evidence, made you come to that conclusion? The flight profiles of a guided bomb - and a glider aircraft - are very different. I appreciate there’s a lot of dual-use, but I’m skeptical someone could be working on something so central to the system and not know what it’s really for - all of the stories of internal-disinformation I’ve heard about from the defence sector were all to keep “peripheral” workers quiet.
- edrxty 5y agoNope, newer guided bombs are almost all of the glide variety, see the SDB/Stormbearker and JSOW. They can achieve high glide ratios similar to aircraft, can follow pre programmed waypoints, have variable terminal profiles including the ability to attack from different directions, and can loiter. Speaking as someone who just left that industry, she was 100% working on glide bombs.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y agoI'll admit I was thinking more of JDAMs than those glide-bombs... huh TIL! Thanks!
- dleslie 5y agoShe gave me a great many more details than what I shared, and they weren't important for sharing the anecdote.
- lesbaker 5y agoThat anecdote reminds me of the big twist in "Real Genius", an otherwise comedic film.
- darkerside 5y agoSpoiler alert, but this reminds me of that Orson Scott Card novel