3 ms·

> The technology can just be requisitioned During a war with national mobilization, that would make sense. Or in a country like China. This kind of coercion is

> The technology can just be requisitioned During a war with national mobilization, that would make sense. Or in a country like China. This kind of coercion is not an expected part of democratic rule.

helaoban 8mo ago
The question of whether or not the government should be able to use AI for targeting without the involvement of humans is a wartime question, since that is the only time the military should be killing people. Under such a scenario, requisition applies, and so all of this talk is moot. The fact that the military is killing people without a declaration of war is the problem, and that's where energy and effort should be directed. Edit: There's a yet larger question on whether any legal constraints on the military's use of technology even makes sense at all, since any safeguards will be quickly yielded if a real enemy presents itself. As a course of natural law, no society will willingly handicap its means of defense against an external threat. It follows then that the only time these ethical concerns apply is when we are the aggressor, which we almost always are. It's the aggression that we should be limiting, not the technology.
- anon84873628 8mo ago
  You could view various non-proliferation agreements as a legislative constraint on military technology. Same for chemical and biologicals. Those do prove your point that the law will be ignored if expedient. But it doesn't invalidate the notion of a society putting constraints on itself.
wrqvrwvq 8mo ago
It has always been a part of democratic rule, in peacetime and war. All telco's share virtually all of their technology with the government. Governments in europe and elsewhere routinely requisition services from many of their large corporations. I think it's absurd to think llm's can meaningfully participate in realworld cmd+ctrl systems and the government already has access to ml-enhanced targeting capabilities. I really have no idea what dod normies think of ai, other than that it's infinitely smarter than them, but that's not saying much.
- not_that_d 8mo ago
  I would like to see a proof of this happening in Europa.
  - soderfoo 8mo ago
    If you're referring to telcos sharing their tech with government there are a few examples of Ericsson working with the Swedish military: > Brigadier-General Mattias Hanson, CIO, Swedish Armed Forces, says: “Strengthening Sweden’s militarily and acting as part of a collective defense requires us to increase our defensive capabilities. We need to utilize the latest technology and all the innovative power of the Swedish private sector. Sweden has unique skills and capabilities in both telecoms and defense technology..." [0] This is just one quick example I could find. [0] https://www.ericsson.com/en/news/2025/6/ericsson-5g-connectivity-to-support-swedish-defense-tests https://www.ericsson.com/en/news/2025/6/ericsson-5g-connecti...
- ricardobeat 8mo ago
  Not the same thing. The parent comment was talking about government “requisiting” services as in forceful compliance, takeovers, not collaboration or regulatory compliance.
tw1984 8mo ago
> an expected part of democratic rule. give yourself a break. what your fancy democratic rule still holds under Trump?
- anon84873628 8mo ago
  Yeah, we all know that. They were making a point in response to the parent.
- ricardobeat 8mo ago
  Some of us don’t live in the USA.
- kristjansson 8mo ago
  This cynicism is the surest way to doom it
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
beepbooptheory 8mo ago
Makes me think of Operation Paperclip [1]. It happened after the war though, and its not China, but I think it helps your point! 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

helaoban 8mo ago

The question of whether or not the government should be able to use AI for targeting without the involvement of humans is a wartime question, since that is the only time the military should be killing people. Under such a scenario, requisition applies, and so all of this talk is moot. The fact that the military is killing people without a declaration of war is the problem, and that's where energy and effort should be directed. Edit: There's a yet larger question on whether any legal constraints on the military's use of technology even makes sense at all, since any safeguards will be quickly yielded if a real enemy presents itself. As a course of natural law, no society will willingly handicap its means of defense against an external threat. It follows then that the only time these ethical concerns apply is when we are the aggressor, which we almost always are. It's the aggression that we should be limiting, not the technology.

anon84873628 8mo ago
You could view various non-proliferation agreements as a legislative constraint on military technology. Same for chemical and biologicals. Those do prove your point that the law will be ignored if expedient. But it doesn't invalidate the notion of a society putting constraints on itself.

wrqvrwvq 8mo ago

It has always been a part of democratic rule, in peacetime and war. All telco's share virtually all of their technology with the government. Governments in europe and elsewhere routinely requisition services from many of their large corporations. I think it's absurd to think llm's can meaningfully participate in realworld cmd+ctrl systems and the government already has access to ml-enhanced targeting capabilities. I really have no idea what dod normies think of ai, other than that it's infinitely smarter than them, but that's not saying much.

not_that_d 8mo ago
I would like to see a proof of this happening in Europa.
- soderfoo 8mo ago
  If you're referring to telcos sharing their tech with government there are a few examples of Ericsson working with the Swedish military: > Brigadier-General Mattias Hanson, CIO, Swedish Armed Forces, says: “Strengthening Sweden’s militarily and acting as part of a collective defense requires us to increase our defensive capabilities. We need to utilize the latest technology and all the innovative power of the Swedish private sector. Sweden has unique skills and capabilities in both telecoms and defense technology..." [0] This is just one quick example I could find. [0] https://www.ericsson.com/en/news/2025/6/ericsson-5g-connectivity-to-support-swedish-defense-tests https://www.ericsson.com/en/news/2025/6/ericsson-5g-connecti...
ricardobeat 8mo ago
Not the same thing. The parent comment was talking about government “requisiting” services as in forceful compliance, takeovers, not collaboration or regulatory compliance.

tw1984 8mo ago

> an expected part of democratic rule. give yourself a break. what your fancy democratic rule still holds under Trump?

anon84873628 8mo ago
Yeah, we all know that. They were making a point in response to the parent.
ricardobeat 8mo ago
Some of us don’t live in the USA.
kristjansson 8mo ago
This cynicism is the surest way to doom it

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

beepbooptheory 8mo ago

Makes me think of Operation Paperclip [1]. It happened after the war though, and its not China, but I think it helps your point! 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip