3 ms·

Are you seriously comparing "general purpose compute" to ballistic missiles?

• jakupovic 1y ago
  If the 'general purpose compute' is used by rocket, then yes?
  • zahlman 1y ago
    So you would be fine with sharing criminal liability if you, for example, bought a car from someone and later that person committed a crime?
    • jakupovic 1y ago
      I wouldn't, that's why there are rules everyone adheres to.
      • zahlman 1y ago
        By the same token, if Microsoft provides "general purpose compute" to a state that does something harmful, Microsoft should not be expected to share moral culpability for that harm. That's why I objected in the first place. It is not as if they provided something exclusively or primarily used for causing harm.
        • jakupovic 1y ago
          MS said they wouldn't, that's where the conflict arises. The fund doesn't want to be involved with any shady stuff and is trying their "humanity clause".
• reactordev 1y ago
  A general purpose technology that happens to be used for harm does not make the technology harmful, only its wielder.
  • zahlman 1y ago
    Yes, that's the point. Munitions are not general purpose, so equating compute to munitions is unjustly ascribing moral weight to the compute.
    • saubeidl 1y ago
      Rockets are general purpose though. They can bring up civilian satellites or fall down as weapons.