Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#271

Post by friedman23 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #254

friedman23 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we aren't going to war with Russia is because Russian leaders know that it is impossible to win a war against the current US military. The reason it's impossible to win a war against the current US military is because the US has spent an obscene amount of money building it for decades. If the US military were not capable of defending Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics would be under Russian ru…

No, it is because of the nukes. Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation. If we spent 1 tenth the amount on our military, we'd still have the power to blow up the entire world X times over. I just think that if you have the ability to destroy the entire world, then that's a powerful enough military and you don't need anything more for defense.

You actually believe that the US would use nuclear weapons against Russia, ensuring the deaths of 10s of millions of Americans and sparking global nuclear war, if Russia invaded Estonia?

The only thing preventing Eastern Europe from being invaded is the conventional military. The US will never risk it's own existence for another country. The Russians know this.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#272

Post by ixtli » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #219

ixtli wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, the Red Army did the majority of the 'heavy lifting' in Europe during WW2. There are some pretty striking political cartoon from Dr. Seuss about this, depicting the US and Britain traveling in comfort to Germany, while the USSR carries all of their luggage.

Apart from the other fronts and the destruction of the German infrastructure and blockading supplies to Germany?

I don't imagine they were saints, but statistically they did the heavy lifting there.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#273

Post by mr_spothawk » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

mkempe wrote: post #233

richmarr wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you meant to imply that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental human right but if so I think that's a bit of a stretch. 'Fundamental rights' (under US law) I think is defensible as fundamental is treated as an alias for constitutional so guns are in. 'Fundamental human rights' to me implies broad and fundamental applicability, i.e. the UN declarations and covenants on human rights, which don't iterate gun…

Yes, the entire Bill of Rights in fact pertains to our inalienable, universal rights. There is no difference from what one may term "fundamental" or "human" rights. It doesn't matter what the UN or anyone in other countries say or talk about -- just as the laws of physics are facts regardless of what some people may say or feel. If we have the right to life, we have the right to self-defense. If we have the right to…

this is my preferred interpretation, also :)

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#274

Post by wolco » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #92

wolco wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have an agenda that is clear but it doesn't mean they should be shutout because the investment they make can help push new ideas forward.

We should embrace the development of a surveillance state because it could spin-off some cool tech? Hmmm.

It worked when they created the internet. The original purpose was not what the internet became.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#275

Post by ixtli » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #128

ixtli wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital interests wont go away quietly, but I hope you're right.

I doubt they will go away peacefully, either. I cannot think of an instance in history where they have though I’d love to be wrong.

I honestly cling to the hope daily that the internet has changed what people's reactions to power will be in the future. It's the one of the few deep things that's changed.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#276

Post by tolgerias » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

harimau777 wrote: post #247

richmarr wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you meant to imply that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental human right but if so I think that's a bit of a stretch. 'Fundamental rights' (under US law) I think is defensible as fundamental is treated as an alias for constitutional so guns are in. 'Fundamental human rights' to me implies broad and fundamental applicability, i.e. the UN declarations and covenants on human rights, which don't iterate gun…

I'd argue that fundamental human rights means rights that exist inherently regardless of whether the UN or any given country recognizes them. My feeling is that people have a right to self defense, which would require them to have access to some effective weapon. In theory that could be a club or blade rather than a firearm; however, currently firearms are the only (somewhat) socially acceptable weapon to carry in th…

self defense is a human right only in a lawless society. The existence of the state makes it necessary for it to have the monopoly of the application of force, and all matters should be resolved in a civil court of law. Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense. Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.. while that is the definition of a lawless society (a society where the state has no way to impose the rule of law). I get it, guns are fun. But a human right? Definitely not

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#277

Post by emanresu101 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

robert_foss wrote: post #22

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.

> Contributing means being complicit.

I don't agree with this. Many open source projects have been used for sinister means (not just by governments). But does that make those contributors complicit? Should those contributors be safe-guarding against all possible unintended use cases?

It seems like you're painting all military efforts and funding in evil terms. But these efforts are directed by many different people, each with their own goals and agendas. Some of those efforts are intended for the betterment of humanity, while other efforts are at the detriment of humanity (at least in my opinion).

I worked for several years at a large defense contractor. The majority of our funding came from military contracts. I worked on a project intended to help detect and disarm explosive devices. And I worked next to a team that was trying to rapidly detect infectious diseases. We all thought we were doing work that would benefit society. But virtually any technology can be used for malicious purposes. Does that make us complicit if those technologies are ever used in malicious ways? Do the evil actions of some people in an organization make the entire organization evil? Does that mean that all military efforts are unjust?

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#278

Post by mr_spothawk » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #206

tc313 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.

It depends how you look at it. What was the purpose. Presumably after fighting in the Revolutionary War the goal was not to give people hunting privileges, they had something else in mind. From that point of view, maybe RPGs should be allowed, but so should attack helicopters, surveillance capabilities, private spy satellites, etc. > IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk…

> It depends how you look at it.

I recently purchased the Federalist Papers so I could have a better understanding of "how" to read it, what the context was, and what types of discussions to anticipate having with those who'd like to look at it differently

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#279

Post by Covzire » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

richmarr wrote: post #169

zaroth wrote: post #141

It boggles my mind, with the current state of affairs, the number of people actively organizing to eliminate or curtail our fundamental human rights. It seems to me that 1st and 2nd amendment rights are both under particularly intense bombardment these days.

I'm not sure if you meant to imply that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental human right but if so I think that's a bit of a stretch. 'Fundamental rights' (under US law) I think is defensible as fundamental is treated as an alias for constitutional so guns are in. 'Fundamental human rights' to me implies broad and fundamental applicability, i.e. the UN declarations and covenants on human rights, which don't iterate gun…

The gravity of the second amendment isn't arms per se, it's the right to retain enough personal power to repel a dictator from taking over the government and just as importantly, making it so that even if a dictator succeeds, the country will be ungovernable for them.

Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

#280

Post by mr_spothawk » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #215

orf wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the 2a just a "well armed malitia"? Maybe an RPG is more than well armed, but encryption?

"well-regulated militia," but it's pretty much an open question how much that actually has to do with the right described in the second clause. Gun rights activists tend to down-play that first bit, as it implies a collective perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with unlimited individual gun ownership rights.

> "it implies a collective perspective that they find conceptually incompatible"

so says you. it's not clear to me at all that militia members don't support collective action