4 ms·

It's really important to separate the tools from the intent IMHO. Just as one can use a butcher knife for its intended purpose or use it to kill, it's possible

by mpyne 13y ago

It's really important to separate the tools from the intent IMHO. Just as one can use a butcher knife for its intended purpose or use it to kill, it's possible to design military equipment to "kill people and break things" without necessarily meaning to wage aggressive warfare. It's true that the military tools are often misused, but that wouldn't change in the real world by simply not having them; pacifist countries are sheep in a field full of wolves. Just look at Ukraine, and then compare to nations that e.g. gave up nuclear weapons and then suffered "regime change". The list includes Libya, parts of Ukraine, and effectively Iraq (who were very close to a nuke circa 1991). There's a reason Iran and North Korea want the bomb, and that reason is because the deterrent value is real, not imagined. Rather it's the same as an underlying principle behind the Second Amendment push (no one cares for my defense more than I care for my defense), scaled up to the geopolitical level. So just as I think it's possible to appreciate the craftsmanship and design that goes into a well-made katana even if you don't intend to run the sword through someone's guts, I think it's possible to appreciate at a technical level some of the technology used in military gear without feeling like it means you support war. ;)

thematt 13y ago
One could also argue that the SR-71 was a tool that prevented death rather than facilitated it -- by delivering intelligence. It was a reconnaissance aircraft and despite being operated by the Air Force the payload of the Blackbird was never weaponized.
- dasmoth 13y ago
  An interceptor variant reached the prototype stage. Ant one point, quite a few were on order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 13y ago
It's really important to separate the tools from the intent IMHO. First thing I'll say: I'm not sure I've reached a conclusion regarding that statement or not. But I've been leaning rather more strongly to the idea that things can be classified as beneficial vs. otherwise. Though sometimes counterintuitively. One of the more interesting hypotheticals I've run across recently is the Paperclip Maximizer example: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer The paperclip maximizer is the canonical thought experiment showing how an artificial general intelligence, even one designed competently and without malice, could ultimately destroy humanity. The thought experiment assumes an AI stable structure of goals or values, and shows that AIs with apparently innocuous values could pose an existential threat. The idea: any simple-minded optimization behavior which doesn't take into consideration human values can, taken to the logical extreme, prove hazardous. It was posted to HN a few years ago, though it didn't trigger much discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1747413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1747413
- mpyne 13y ago
  It's a great thought experiment. I think I even read it when it came across HN. But it seems to me to be an argument about why we keep humans "in the loop", as it were, and less about what tools you give the humans. It does open some questions about how "innovative" one might want to be when developing a weapon, even for defensive uses. It's sort of unfortunate that nuclear physics made the gains it did, when it did, as a big part of the reason the U.S. ended up making the big push for the bomb, at a time when they needed all the resources they could get put into things like logistics for shipping materiel, was because of the fear that Germany might get it first. I.e., "if someone will get the bomb, we'd better do it better they do". I suppose the Cold War would have ensured proliferation one way or another, but WWII certainly did not help the cause of non-proliferation. But either way, war or defense (whatever you call it) can never be a simple-minded optimized anything. It is almost the very highest level of human holistic competition. So I'm not worried about the technology (as long as we don't make it self-aware, of course), I'm worried about the people.
  - quahaug 13y ago

by mpyne 13y ago

thematt 13y ago

One could also argue that the SR-71 was a tool that prevented death rather than facilitated it -- by delivering intelligence. It was a reconnaissance aircraft and despite being operated by the Air Force the payload of the Blackbird was never weaponized.

dasmoth 13y ago
An interceptor variant reached the prototype stage. Ant one point, quite a few were on order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 13y ago

It's really important to separate the tools from the intent IMHO. First thing I'll say: I'm not sure I've reached a conclusion regarding that statement or not. But I've been leaning rather more strongly to the idea that things can be classified as beneficial vs. otherwise. Though sometimes counterintuitively. One of the more interesting hypotheticals I've run across recently is the Paperclip Maximizer example: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer The paperclip maximizer is the canonical thought experiment showing how an artificial general intelligence, even one designed competently and without malice, could ultimately destroy humanity. The thought experiment assumes an AI stable structure of goals or values, and shows that AIs with apparently innocuous values could pose an existential threat. The idea: any simple-minded optimization behavior which doesn't take into consideration human values can, taken to the logical extreme, prove hazardous. It was posted to HN a few years ago, though it didn't trigger much discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1747413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1747413

mpyne 13y ago
It's a great thought experiment. I think I even read it when it came across HN. But it seems to me to be an argument about why we keep humans "in the loop", as it were, and less about what tools you give the humans. It does open some questions about how "innovative" one might want to be when developing a weapon, even for defensive uses. It's sort of unfortunate that nuclear physics made the gains it did, when it did, as a big part of the reason the U.S. ended up making the big push for the bomb, at a time when they needed all the resources they could get put into things like logistics for shipping materiel, was because of the fear that Germany might get it first. I.e., "if someone will get the bomb, we'd better do it better they do". I suppose the Cold War would have ensured proliferation one way or another, but WWII certainly did not help the cause of non-proliferation. But either way, war or defense (whatever you call it) can never be a simple-minded optimized anything. It is almost the very highest level of human holistic competition. So I'm not worried about the technology (as long as we don't make it self-aware, of course), I'm worried about the people.
- quahaug 13y ago