3 ms·
I mean there's a very clear difference between 'strategic tech' that's supported by defence (GPS) - and weapons systems (Spitfire). And yes, some weapons syste
by bluegatty 1mo ago
I mean there's a very clear difference between 'strategic tech' that's supported by defence (GPS) - and weapons systems (Spitfire).
And yes, some weapons systems are just ... 'weapons related' ... and the dual-use comes later, so it's more nuanced. Some of it more obvious (radar), than others (cruise missiles).
But I think it's important to characterize these things.
- nradov 1mo agoWhy is it important? Do those arbitrary labels allow us to feel morally superior to those who make different choices?
- bluegatty 1mo agoBecause building 'GPS', 'LLMs', 'food preservation', 'vaccines' and 'off-road vehicles' is not 'arbitrarily different' from building 'cruise missiles' or 'F22 fighters'. They are completely different things. 'Tech' that can be used by the military', and 'weapons' are not 'arbitrary labels'. HN is the only place in the world where someone would try to conflate the two to make a point, I don't think it's reasonable.
- nradov 1mo agoThat's just your meaningless opinion.
- bluegatty 1mo agoNo, it's a substantially objective, and fully uncontroversial perspective. Given that, consider consulting with another actual human being, or even your favourite AI to help ground yourself a bit in those ideas.
- cindyllm 1mo ago[dead]