4 ms·
There is a wide range of moral and practical opinions between the statement “all weapons are evil” and “global corporations ought not to develop autonomous weap
by ckrapu 2y ago
There is a wide range of moral and practical opinions between the statement “all weapons are evil” and “global corporations ought not to develop autonomous weapons”.
- CamperBob2 2y agoTell Putin. He will entertain no such inhibitions.
- ignoramous 2y ago> no such inhibitions Propping up evil figure/regime/ideology (Bolsheviks/Communists) to justify remorseless evilness (Concentration camps/Nuclear bomb) isn't new nor unique, but particularly predictable.
- CamperBob2 2y agoSadly, attempts at equating evil figures/regimes/ideologies with those who fight back against them are equally predictable.
- gosub100 2y agonukes saved countless US lives being lost to a regime who brought us into it. And it's incalculable how many wars they have prevented.
- vkou 2y agoWe have Putin at home, he spent the past weekend making populist noises about annexing his neighbours over bullshit pretenses. I'm sure this sounds like a big nothingburger from the perspective of, you know, people he isn't threatening. How can you excuse that behaviour? How can you think someone like that can be trusted with any weapons? How naive and morally bankrupt do you have to be to build a gun for that kind of person, and think that it won't be used irresponsibly?
- tmnvdb 2y agoI understand the sentiment but the logical conclusion of that argument is that the US should disarm and cease existing.
- vkou 2y agoThe better logical conclusion of that argument is that the US needs to remove him, and replace him with someone who isn't threatening innocent people. That it won't is a mixture of cowardice, cynical opportunism, and complicity with unprovoked aggression. In which case, I posit that yes, if you're fine with threatening or inflicting violence on innocent people, you don't have a moral right to 'self-defense'. It makes you a predator, and arming a predator is a mistake. You lose any moral ground you have when you are an unprovoked aggressor.
- pixl97 2y agoYa go poke people with nukes and see how that works out
- vkou 2y agoYou are making an excellent argument for nuclear proliferation.
- tmnvdb 2y agoI'm not a fan of Trump but I also feel he has not been so bad that I think that surrendering the world order to Russia and China is a rational action that minimizes suffering. That seems be an argument that is more about signalling that you really dislike Trump than about a rational consideration of all options available to us.
- vkou 2y agoIt's not a shallow, dismissable, just-your-opinion-maaan 'dislike' to observe that he is being an aggressor. Just like it's not a 'dislike' to observe that Putin is being one. There are more options than arming an aggressor and capitulating to foreign powers. It's a false dichotomy to suggest it.
- vasco 2y agoPalantir exists, this would just be competition. It's not like Google is the only company capable of creating autonomous weapons so if they abstain the world is saved. They just want a piece of the pie. The problem is the pie comes with dead babies, but if you forget that part it's alright.
- astrange 2y agoPalantir doesn't make autonomous weapons, they sell SQL queries and have an evil-sounding name because it recruits juniors who think the name is cool. Might be thinking of Anduril.
- trhway 2y agoPalantir provides combat management system in Ukraine. That system collect and analyzes intelligence, including drone video streams, and identifies targets. Right now people are still in the loop though that is naturally would go away in the near future I think.
- cookiengineer 2y agoPalantir literally developed Lavender that has been used for autonomous targeting in the bombardments of the Gaza stripe. Look it up.
- pbiggar 2y agohttps://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
- tmnvdb 2y agoWith or without autonomous weapons, war is always a sordid business with 'dead babies', this is not in itself a fact that tells us what weapons systems to develop.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
- cortesoft 2y agoWho should develop autonomous weapons?
- IIAOPSW 2y agoWho should develop biological weapons? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Ideally no one, and if the cost / expertise is so niche that only a handful of sophisticated actors could possibly actually do it, then in fact (by way of enforceable treaty) no one.
- aydyn 2y agoSo in other words, cede military superiority to your enemies? Come on you already know the rational solution to prisoner's dilemma, MAD, etc. > enforceable treaty How would you enforce it after you get nuked?
- lmm 2y ago> in other words, cede military superiority to your enemies? We're talking about making war slightly more expensive for yourself to preserve the things that matter, which is a trade-off that we make all the time. Even in war you don't have to race for the bottom for every marginal fraction-of-a-percent edge. We've managed to e.g. ban antipersonnel landmines, this is an extremely similar case. > How would you enforce it after you get nuked? And yet we've somehow managed to avoid getting into nuclear wars.
- pixl97 2y agoBecause after proliferation the cost would be too great and nukes other than wiping cities aren't that useful AI on the other hand seems to be very multi purpose
- Sabinus 2y agoResusal to make or use AI-enabled weapons is not "making war slightly expensive for yourself", it's like giving up on the Manhattan project because the product is dangerous. Feels good but will lead to disaster in the long run.