3 ms·

. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. So if our enemies had no qualms

. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. So if our enemies had no qualms at all about doing this, wouldn't it make sense that we have weapons that can at least counter, and potentially fight back? Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland? > "Don't be evil" Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?

izacus 4mo ago
If you actually read the article you'd know that the Googles government isn't friendly with the author's government, which makes your nitpicking nonsensical.
lokar 4mo ago
Your argument is not really responding to his. He has, and has had, a specific moral philosophy he follows. When he took the job the public (and once he started, internal) words and actions of the company fit within that philosophy (or closely enough). Now the company has changed and they don’t fit. Further, the obvious changes happened without any real notice or explanation. It seems reasonable in that situation to leave. FWIW; I was in the same situation, and left. Do you fault him for his personal moral code? He is not telling you how you should act.
leptons 4mo ago
>Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you? When they rename "Department of Defense" to "Department of War", there can be no mistake about the intention of the government. They aren't "protecting" us, they are actively starting unnecessary wars, because cruelty has always been the point for them.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  Did you just realize this now? The name "Department of Defense" has always been a euphemism. The last time we were in a defensive war was World War II--ironically, when the DoD was still called the "Department of War."
  - leptons 4mo ago
    Nice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      It’s not “whataboutism” because it’s relating to the same event, not a different event. In context of the facts, it seems like your complaint is that the name is being changed to accurately reflect what the DOD was already doing.
      - leptons 4mo ago
        Nice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.
        saltyoldman 4mo ago
        Is it over because making real arguments backed by facts are hard?
        leptons 4mo ago
        Nice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.
mieses 4mo ago
he is a self described pacifist. how nice to be him.
- nathan_compton 4mo ago
  I don't know, it seems like being a pacifist is harder, since it exposes you to violence to which you cannot retaliate while alienating you from your peers with less stringent moral opinions. Doesn't seem like it really makes anything easier. You don't have to look hard to find that history is replete with pacifists who paid social and legal penalties for their moral stance.
  - Chu4eeno 4mo ago
    He also said that "defense" was "different", so he's not that principled. I assume if he actually felt threatened personally he wouldn't have any issues with developing weapons (through full-disk encryption or unbreakable DRM or locking people out of their devices or whatever).
jubilanti 4mo ago
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of https://enwp.org/Pacifism https://enwp.org/Pacifism
- daedrdev 4mo ago
  I have met pacifists who say all war is bad* and thus the Russia Ukraine war should immediately end, without any ideas on how to get that to happen except a few who imply Ukraine should roll over and be consumed. *or this is an inter-capitalist war
  - asadotzler 4mo ago
    I once met a horse that could count. That hardly makes horses a good representation of math professors. Our experiences with a few instances of something is rarely sufficient for us to suggest or imply some kind of universality.
- saltyoldman 4mo ago
  Or, you don't understand the main criticism of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Criticism
themafia 4mo ago
> if the AI is used to stop an ISIS Describe that scenario to me. What precisely is the language model going to do? To defeat a _terrorist_ organization? I feel like this is way to asymmetric of a philosophy to actually work, but, I'm curious to know what your imagination holds on this one. > Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you? The government _is_ impotent in protecting you. If they weren't we wouldn't need courts. Or a constitution. Or the revolution which started it. Finally, there is an argument to be made, that our government, and it's imperious ways, were the primary force which led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Perhaps if we weren't telling lies about yellow cake and mobile chemical labs while indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians we wouldn't be facing such a ridiculous world security posture.
- saltyoldman 4mo ago
  You must be one of those people asking to free Karmelo? Some things are just simple. ISIS is a terrorist organization you're carrying water for. Most of the mission of ISIS is simply spread Islam and kill infidels. Islam had that charter prior to the creation of America by the way.
int_19h 4mo ago
I'm not a pacifist, but I wouldn't work in any place related to the US military for the simple reason that it is mostly used to wage wars of aggression these days, or provide materiel to other countries that do. Stop doing that and then we can seriously talk about defensive military tech. I left NVIDIA in part because it is too heavily involved in these things (and Palantir and Anduril specifically). Regarding this specifically: > Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland? it again depends on what exactly said AI does. If it's used to surveil most people most of the time, for example, then that probably does reduce the odds of an ISIS-linked attack on US, but the surveillance itself would be a greater injury at that scale.

izacus 4mo ago

If you actually read the article you'd know that the Googles government isn't friendly with the author's government, which makes your nitpicking nonsensical.

lokar 4mo ago

Your argument is not really responding to his. He has, and has had, a specific moral philosophy he follows. When he took the job the public (and once he started, internal) words and actions of the company fit within that philosophy (or closely enough). Now the company has changed and they don’t fit. Further, the obvious changes happened without any real notice or explanation. It seems reasonable in that situation to leave. FWIW; I was in the same situation, and left. Do you fault him for his personal moral code? He is not telling you how you should act.

leptons 4mo ago

>Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you? When they rename "Department of Defense" to "Department of War", there can be no mistake about the intention of the government. They aren't "protecting" us, they are actively starting unnecessary wars, because cruelty has always been the point for them.

rayiner 4mo ago
Did you just realize this now? The name "Department of Defense" has always been a euphemism. The last time we were in a defensive war was World War II--ironically, when the DoD was still called the "Department of War."
- leptons 4mo ago
  Nice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    It’s not “whataboutism” because it’s relating to the same event, not a different event. In context of the facts, it seems like your complaint is that the name is being changed to accurately reflect what the DOD was already doing.
    - leptons 4mo ago
      Nice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.
      - saltyoldman 4mo ago
        Is it over because making real arguments backed by facts are hard?
        leptons 4mo ago
        Nice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.

mieses 4mo ago

he is a self described pacifist. how nice to be him.

nathan_compton 4mo ago
I don't know, it seems like being a pacifist is harder, since it exposes you to violence to which you cannot retaliate while alienating you from your peers with less stringent moral opinions. Doesn't seem like it really makes anything easier. You don't have to look hard to find that history is replete with pacifists who paid social and legal penalties for their moral stance.
- Chu4eeno 4mo ago
  He also said that "defense" was "different", so he's not that principled. I assume if he actually felt threatened personally he wouldn't have any issues with developing weapons (through full-disk encryption or unbreakable DRM or locking people out of their devices or whatever).

jubilanti 4mo ago

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of https://enwp.org/Pacifism https://enwp.org/Pacifism

daedrdev 4mo ago
I have met pacifists who say all war is bad* and thus the Russia Ukraine war should immediately end, without any ideas on how to get that to happen except a few who imply Ukraine should roll over and be consumed. *or this is an inter-capitalist war
- asadotzler 4mo ago
  I once met a horse that could count. That hardly makes horses a good representation of math professors. Our experiences with a few instances of something is rarely sufficient for us to suggest or imply some kind of universality.
saltyoldman 4mo ago
Or, you don't understand the main criticism of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Criticism

themafia 4mo ago

> if the AI is used to stop an ISIS Describe that scenario to me. What precisely is the language model going to do? To defeat a _terrorist_ organization? I feel like this is way to asymmetric of a philosophy to actually work, but, I'm curious to know what your imagination holds on this one. > Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you? The government _is_ impotent in protecting you. If they weren't we wouldn't need courts. Or a constitution. Or the revolution which started it. Finally, there is an argument to be made, that our government, and it's imperious ways, were the primary force which led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Perhaps if we weren't telling lies about yellow cake and mobile chemical labs while indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians we wouldn't be facing such a ridiculous world security posture.

saltyoldman 4mo ago
You must be one of those people asking to free Karmelo? Some things are just simple. ISIS is a terrorist organization you're carrying water for. Most of the mission of ISIS is simply spread Islam and kill infidels. Islam had that charter prior to the creation of America by the way.

int_19h 4mo ago

I'm not a pacifist, but I wouldn't work in any place related to the US military for the simple reason that it is mostly used to wage wars of aggression these days, or provide materiel to other countries that do. Stop doing that and then we can seriously talk about defensive military tech. I left NVIDIA in part because it is too heavily involved in these things (and Palantir and Anduril specifically). Regarding this specifically: > Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland? it again depends on what exactly said AI does. If it's used to surveil most people most of the time, for example, then that probably does reduce the odds of an ISIS-linked attack on US, but the surveillance itself would be a greater injury at that scale.