111–120 of 1001 posts
As an engineer I have serious moral qualms about furthering the goals of any military. Contributing means being complicit. The fact that the military funds research doesn't change that.
Boy they pay great though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funding come from the DoD because any other appropriate entity is financially starved because the DoD gets so much money. The latest budget provides them: $700,000,000,000 Or as Obama said in the 2016 State of the Union: "We spend more on defense than the next 8 nations COMBINED." Keep in mind, most of that 8 are allies. I struggle to see why we should be praising a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Just imagine if we stopped spending on defense in the 80s when the cold war ended and we had to deal with today's Russia with decades old technology
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes you an activist to not want to work on certain projects because you disagree with them?
This actually has a simple definitional answer: If your goal in not working on them is to bring about political or social change as a result, then you are, by definition, an activist. If not, no :)
Google+Alphabet yearly revenues are in the same ballpark as South Africa's GDP. Google/Alphabet is already a country in its own right, and libertarians would already be sceptical of Google's role in society. This is just another step down a long road of Technocracy... Also, wasn't "Don't be evil" dropped as a motto? I thought I read that.
Common misconception, and pointless to even bring it up. Because while "Don't be evil" is in their code of conduct, they regularly do evil.
Google+Alphabet yearly revenues are in the same ballpark as South Africa's GDP. Google/Alphabet is already a country in its own right, and libertarians would already be sceptical of Google's role in society. This is just another step down a long road of Technocracy... Also, wasn't "Don't be evil" dropped as a motto? I thought I read that.
Countries aren’t defined by the size of their economy but, at the very least, the monopoly of violence. Google doesn’t hold such a monopoly and likely never will...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This actually has a simple definitional answer: If your goal in not working on them is to bring about political or social change as a result, then you are, by definition, an activist. If not, no :)
Doesn't by the same logic working on them, and thus implicitly supporting the political or societal status quo, make you an activist as well?
(though i admit different dictionaries seem to have fairly different definitions here)
This may be an uncomfortable fact but people have surprisingly short memories: the military funded the majority of the early advances in systems, networking, and cryptography (and especially as a large part of the latter subject area, invested heavily in fundamental, theoretical research). Not saying that I disagree with the employees' opinion, just that DoD/Pentagon involvement in artificial intelligence research sh…
Exactly. China just turned dictatorship, and has already installed AI facial recognition and soon voice recognition software for its police. This could allow China to better manage its Uighyr concentration camps and kidnap freedom fighters in Hong Kong. Along with its ambition to have everything 'Made in China' in 2025, and invade Taiwan, China is looking like a AI enhanced Hitler Germany 2.0. We need weapons to figh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funding come from the DoD because any other appropriate entity is financially starved because the DoD gets so much money. The latest budget provides them: $700,000,000,000 Or as Obama said in the 2016 State of the Union: "We spend more on defense than the next 8 nations COMBINED." Keep in mind, most of that 8 are allies. I struggle to see why we should be praising a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Naming it 'defense' is already a huge stretch. I realize every country does this but it is as much or more about projecting power all across the globe as it is defense.
This may be an uncomfortable fact but people have surprisingly short memories: the military funded the majority of the early advances in systems, networking, and cryptography (and especially as a large part of the latter subject area, invested heavily in fundamental, theoretical research). Not saying that I disagree with the employees' opinion, just that DoD/Pentagon involvement in artificial intelligence research sh…
I hear you, and I want to make a "times change" argument. This is my perspective, because I read too much scifi: I can conceive of a couple possibilities in 300 years. 1. Humanity is gone or stone-aged. Either because it failed to colonize before being wiped out by disease, because it nuked itself, or because it implemented AI in a way that got itself killed. 2. Humanity has turned peaceful, formed a global community…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear you, and I want to make a "times change" argument. This is my perspective, because I read too much scifi: I can conceive of a couple possibilities in 300 years. 1. Humanity is gone or stone-aged. Either because it failed to colonize before being wiped out by disease, because it nuked itself, or because it implemented AI in a way that got itself killed. 2. Humanity has turned peaceful, formed a global community…
I worry that culture doesnt help at the top of leadership. Once you get to the top of an organization, only a few people need to listen to you. As long as you keep their paychecks and power, they will listen to you. Dictators dont care if war is unpopular as long as its beneficial. I think nukes may be obsolete because war is no longer beneficial, but leadership of a company may be 100% set on finding AI by any means…