5 ms·

"Every algorithm known to man has both good and bad uses. Not developing algorithms because they might be harmful is insane." Yep, that missile guiding system

• plinkplonk 13y ago
  "Dude, seriously? Everyone should have some sense of morals and question authority" Yes seriously. My "sense of morals" is very different from yours (in that I'd gladly work on defence tech say.). So what?
  • jblow 13y ago
    I would gladly work on "defense tech" too, as in actually defending people. But what you mean by "defense tech" is actually offense tech. Look at how these things are actually used in the world. When an entire field needs to stand behind a euphemism in order to prevent seeming ugly, that is certainly some kind of a sign.
    • plinkplonk 13y ago
      There is no difference between a technology being used defensively or offensively. The 'self driving car' tech will feed into 'self driving tanks' tech, and vice versa. Military Satellite tech gives you the GPS and Google Maps, which will in turn be used for military purposes. A technology (including algorithms) can be used for good or ill. That is just the nature of the beast. You can certainly work towards what you see as the overreach of American militarism. It is a political/economic problem which needs a political/economic solution. Your (not) working on cryptanalysis algorithms has nothing to do with it.
    • cobrausn 13y ago
      To play devil's advocate: Let's say my morals aren't bothered by killing members of the Taliban / Al-Qaeda / Enemy Of The Week, as I consider them a bunch of fanatics and a threat to western civilization. As such, I work on guidance systems and weapons to try and improve their effectiveness and accuracy, making them more precise, and less likely to kill civilians and cause collateral damage when employed. Now what? Where do you derive your morals, and what makes them inherently correct, and mine reprehensible?
    • ironchef 13y ago
      The missile guidance systems used for targeting offensively is similar (not the same) to the missile guidance systems used for intercepting incoming ballistics. Are you then suggesting that guidance systems for missiles that intercept (like a thaad or mim patriot) should not have been created? That is one way things are actually used in the world. I would think a case such as that could be seen to be morally ambiguous.
• yummyfajitas 13y ago
  The primary purpose of that missile guiding system is to miss civilians. Unguided bombs are very cheap and highly effective at taking out the target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War...
  • makomk 13y ago
    These days, the primary purpose is quite likely to be taking out hardened targets of one kind or another - unguided bombs are not terribly suitable for that, unless you use a lot of overkill (as in, nukes against low-tech adversaries hiding in caves overkill, most likely).
• TylerE 13y ago
  Where do you think GPS came from?
  • dylandrop 13y ago
    I'm saying people shouldn't actively engineer things that will hurt people. If every engineer refused to build weapons, there would be no weapons. GPS would exist without the army. If someone is putting GPS into a homing missile system, then they're actively building something to harm someone else.
    • TylerE 13y ago
      No, it wouldn't exist, actually. Do you really think the government spent $100s of billions so you could navigate in your car?
      • dylandrop 13y ago
        It possibly wouldn't have existed until a much more modern era when the cost would have been less, sure. But someone (Google hint hint) would definitely invest in GPS if they thought it would make them money. Besides, I don't think you can really compare GPS with say, making explosives that can reach a greater blast radius. My point was that to simply say "well, some Army projects can be used for bad and for good" does not justify the engineering of technologies that are clearly meant for killing.