6 ms·

I wonder about the psychology of the people (researchers) working on "innovations" such as these (other things also come to mind, e.g. face detection in crowds,

I wonder about the psychology of the people (researchers) working on "innovations" such as these (other things also come to mind, e.g. face detection in crowds, optimizing fragment distribution from bomb/granade explosions). Are they just extremely myopic, and cannot see the consequences of their work at all? Or naive, in that they only can imagine the positive use cases? ...or (to simplify) are they evil and fully understand and welcome the terrifying outcomes?

DeWilde 4y ago
I fully understand the terrifying outcomes but would have no problem building these systems to act as deterrent, or counter-force, to the people who would use these "innovations" for evil purposes. So there is a third option, alongside your original two.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- maybeOneDay 4y ago
  Name a country that develops high tech weaponry and doesn't do one of the two: - Use it for evil purposes - Sell it to other nations that then use it for evil purposes Anyone involved in the defence industry is complicit in the death of innocents, your third option is a fallacy.
  - dougabug 4y ago
    But you presumably rely on your own nation’s military to help protect and safeguard your rights, freedoms, even your life. Without drone and anti-tank / aircraft missiles, Ukraine would already be lost, and Putin would be on to his next conquest. If we agree to allow our own soldiers to risk their lives to defend us, then we are morally obligated to provide them with the best protection we can provide for them. That’s a choice: we could choose to not support our soldiers, but then we should forego the right to be protected by them.
    - maybeOneDay 4y ago
      Sure. I do not argue that we should abolish the military and all defence industry. I _do_ argue that the military industrial complex is by and large profit driven and motivated by greed not the desire to protect its citizens. I do believe that anyone working for, for example, BAE systems is on average making the world a (much) worse place. I don't believe the individuals involved are necessarily morally bankrupt themselves.
      - dougabug 4y ago
        You agree that there should be a military and a defense industry, but anyone working on weapons R&D is a malevolent actor (ie “making the world a much worse place)? This seems illogical. The effectiveness of a military is tightly bound to its long term R&D armaments. Without highly effective arms, and proper training and tactics, casualties suffered by our armed forces in combat would be far higher (as the Russians are discovering). If you accept that the military exists at least in part to protect you, then investment in arms development follows as an obligation to those sent into harms way on your behalf.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        maybeOneDay 4y ago
        I agree there should be a military and a defense industry which is _different_ from our current system. I believe anyone working for the _current_ system is likely to be causing harm greater than the good they also cause. Malevolent implies intent. I'm sure that there are non evil people who are working for BAE. I'm also sure that the vast majority of them have facilitated far more innocent death than worthy defense of life. > casualties suffered by our armed forces in combat would be far higher I have not supported any of the military action my nation has taken in my lifetime and any casualties are primarily a result of the greed (for power, votes, or wealth) of those in power. The lack of equipment has acutely caused casualties, but the existence of the military industrial complex has caused the wars in which they take place. I'm not saying I have the great solution to end all war and create world peace. But I can't see a reason other than naivety, apathy, or propaganda that someone could work for BAE and think they are doing good in the world.
  - DeWilde 4y ago
    I don't deny that, each country has done or has the capacity to commit atrocities. Some just do it less. The third option isn't a fallacy if you are looking it from the perspective of that individual researcher who lives in a country that seeks to develop those weapons because its rivals are also developing them. They are thinking for their own safety and the safety for the people around them who live in that country. Would you do nothing if you know your efforts could potentially shield the people you love from harm? Or would you help build the system knowing that they might get misused, in the hopes that it at least protects you and the people dear to you? EDIT: typos.
    - maybeOneDay 4y ago
      I do indeed make the choice to not work in the defence industry as opposed to helping building such systems. So in effect, yes I do nothing. I can't argue that the military does not to some level protect me - I do believe that in my (western EU) country the military and the arms trade is almost exclusively, right now, dedicated towards either atrocities, proxy wars, or selling to Saudi Arabia et al. Call me naive and argue that without these things my loved ones and I would be at risk, but I could never personally support the current system we have, and I question the degree to which those who believe they are doing good, on average, are in fact doing so.
imtringued 4y ago
Or they hate the slaughterbots video and want to prove it wrong by building high tech drones that fall short of the science fiction depicted in the video. I think I would join that group.
eunos 4y ago
They don't believe that "innovations" you mentioned are something 'dirty' or 'unpleasant'. I think it's like contention between vegan vs non-vegan at the end of the day.
hoseja 4y ago
Or they are trying to get paid and mostly willfully ignore the larger implications of their work.
asdff 4y ago
OTOH if the work is possible it will be done, so you might as well develop it for agencies you align with if you have the expertise.

DeWilde 4y ago

I fully understand the terrifying outcomes but would have no problem building these systems to act as deterrent, or counter-force, to the people who would use these "innovations" for evil purposes. So there is a third option, alongside your original two.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
maybeOneDay 4y ago
Name a country that develops high tech weaponry and doesn't do one of the two: - Use it for evil purposes - Sell it to other nations that then use it for evil purposes Anyone involved in the defence industry is complicit in the death of innocents, your third option is a fallacy.
- dougabug 4y ago
  But you presumably rely on your own nation’s military to help protect and safeguard your rights, freedoms, even your life. Without drone and anti-tank / aircraft missiles, Ukraine would already be lost, and Putin would be on to his next conquest. If we agree to allow our own soldiers to risk their lives to defend us, then we are morally obligated to provide them with the best protection we can provide for them. That’s a choice: we could choose to not support our soldiers, but then we should forego the right to be protected by them.
  - maybeOneDay 4y ago
    Sure. I do not argue that we should abolish the military and all defence industry. I _do_ argue that the military industrial complex is by and large profit driven and motivated by greed not the desire to protect its citizens. I do believe that anyone working for, for example, BAE systems is on average making the world a (much) worse place. I don't believe the individuals involved are necessarily morally bankrupt themselves.
    - dougabug 4y ago
      You agree that there should be a military and a defense industry, but anyone working on weapons R&D is a malevolent actor (ie “making the world a much worse place)? This seems illogical. The effectiveness of a military is tightly bound to its long term R&D armaments. Without highly effective arms, and proper training and tactics, casualties suffered by our armed forces in combat would be far higher (as the Russians are discovering). If you accept that the military exists at least in part to protect you, then investment in arms development follows as an obligation to those sent into harms way on your behalf.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - maybeOneDay 4y ago
        I agree there should be a military and a defense industry which is _different_ from our current system. I believe anyone working for the _current_ system is likely to be causing harm greater than the good they also cause. Malevolent implies intent. I'm sure that there are non evil people who are working for BAE. I'm also sure that the vast majority of them have facilitated far more innocent death than worthy defense of life. > casualties suffered by our armed forces in combat would be far higher I have not supported any of the military action my nation has taken in my lifetime and any casualties are primarily a result of the greed (for power, votes, or wealth) of those in power. The lack of equipment has acutely caused casualties, but the existence of the military industrial complex has caused the wars in which they take place. I'm not saying I have the great solution to end all war and create world peace. But I can't see a reason other than naivety, apathy, or propaganda that someone could work for BAE and think they are doing good in the world.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  I don't deny that, each country has done or has the capacity to commit atrocities. Some just do it less. The third option isn't a fallacy if you are looking it from the perspective of that individual researcher who lives in a country that seeks to develop those weapons because its rivals are also developing them. They are thinking for their own safety and the safety for the people around them who live in that country. Would you do nothing if you know your efforts could potentially shield the people you love from harm? Or would you help build the system knowing that they might get misused, in the hopes that it at least protects you and the people dear to you? EDIT: typos.
  - maybeOneDay 4y ago
    I do indeed make the choice to not work in the defence industry as opposed to helping building such systems. So in effect, yes I do nothing. I can't argue that the military does not to some level protect me - I do believe that in my (western EU) country the military and the arms trade is almost exclusively, right now, dedicated towards either atrocities, proxy wars, or selling to Saudi Arabia et al. Call me naive and argue that without these things my loved ones and I would be at risk, but I could never personally support the current system we have, and I question the degree to which those who believe they are doing good, on average, are in fact doing so.

imtringued 4y ago

Or they hate the slaughterbots video and want to prove it wrong by building high tech drones that fall short of the science fiction depicted in the video. I think I would join that group.

eunos 4y ago

They don't believe that "innovations" you mentioned are something 'dirty' or 'unpleasant'. I think it's like contention between vegan vs non-vegan at the end of the day.

hoseja 4y ago

Or they are trying to get paid and mostly willfully ignore the larger implications of their work.

asdff 4y ago

OTOH if the work is possible it will be done, so you might as well develop it for agencies you align with if you have the expertise.