Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 1001 posts

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

#281

Post by chatmasta »

smokeyj wrote: post #132
airstrike wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being “mindful of their actions” doesn’t necessarily mean they are doing the right thing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t really get why anyone would want drones to be less accurate, but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right?

> but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right? More specifically, a warmongering fool who can't discern a false dichotomy - because your options in life are rarely ever drones vs more lethal drones. These regions we're using drones in. They could probably use more tools to enable true democratic representation. Isn't that what Google should be doing, given that they "don't do evil"? Building…

Didn’t they eliminate that don’t be evil slogan a few years ago?

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

#282

Post by laughingman2 »

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…

Then please petetion your senator to deregulate tanks, fighter jets, nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles, submarines etc. If you are serious about arming civilians as protection to overthrow tyranny, do a better job.

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

#283

Post by pmarreck »

But wouldn’t drone strike accuracy improvement actually reduce civilian casualties?

Given that these strikes will occur one way or the other, isn't this stance actually adding more misery to the world?

(So do drone strikes in general. Much better to negotiate at a table with a mediator or use a sporting event to resolve disputes, but I don't currently run things here.)

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

#284

Post by testvox »

jbob2000 wrote: post #148
olliej wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes

Why don't I have to do it for Android?

Maybe you are only distributing your app to people in the US? Or maybe Android apps only use crypo built into the OS and done actually ship with any.

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

#285

Post by sseth »

stale2002 wrote: post #249
sseth wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well "governments" already have nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers, drones and what have you. It's not some new concept. You can take it as given that regimes you will never want to live under will be putting their best people in using AI for military purposes. It's dangerous to imagine one is sitting on some moral high ground by refusing to work for the military. We all owe our freedom to previous generations of scien…

If we already have nukes, why would we need anything else? Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation. The only use for the other types of weapons is to participate in some other civil war in another country that we shouldn't be in. So no, I don't care if we "fall behind" because we still have nukes and those are enough to protect us in the conflicts that matter.

Nukes are an instrument of last resort, but you don't want to get to the point where that is your only option. And it is possible that technical advances in missile defence may blunt this advantage.

Being able to prevent friendly (and even neutral) countries from being bullied or going over to the dark side is also important because ultimately the best defence against rising autocratic forces is to ensure a broad alliance of friendly, democratic countries who are secure against interference by unfriendly regimes.

If a country like the USA can have its elections manipulated, how vulnerable might smaller democracies be?

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

#286

Post by chatmasta »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #214
jcwayne wrote: post #165

Serious question for those who agree with this petition. Which country's military would you like to see be the most technologically advanced in 20 years?

I'd vote for Belgium. More seriously: the US has nuclear weapons, rendering them safe from any direct confrontation with enemies challenging them technologically. They have a conventional military 10x the size needed for the sort of intervention that actually succeeded in the past (the Balkans, the first Gulf war). The rather unsuccessful wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) were lost not for technological reasons or any other d…

You might be interested in the book The Seventh Sense: Power, Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks. The author builds a thesis around the idea that one can understand the next wave of power as a network problem. He presents the loss of the Iraq war within this framework, as a failure on the part of a conventional military to adapt to the new forms of influence, communication and organization enabled by dense networks.

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

#287

Post by mkempe »

tolgerias wrote: post #276
harimau777 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 defin…

You're quite incorrect. The state properly has a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force (and none other) under objective laws and legal processes. But self-defense is an emergency, and there is no rational argument to claim that one may not protect oneself, one's family, or one's property against beasts or thugs. On the other hand, if you kill someone in self-defense, you had better be prepared to explain how necessary it was, in the court of law; which is exactly how things work in the USA.

If one is so depraved as to argue that self-defense is unacceptable as such, then one should be prepared to live and die as a slave to the first thug or dictator who walks by one's neighborhood or country.

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

#288

Post by jteppinette »

alistairSH wrote: post #265
treebeard901 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classification of cryptography as munitions was an interesting choice. The first amendment may protect domestic encryption capabilities as stated by the wikipedia article. From a legal standpoint, does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? As information becomes weaponized, it's an interesting thought. The first amendment is arguably more vulnerable these days, so I…

does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? It doesn't much matter. Even if somebody made the case that "crypto is a form of 'Arms', subject to 2A protection," the 2A doesn't grant an unregulated right to own whatever "arms" one chooses. All the rights granted by the Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation. So, Congress could simply legislate a restriction on c…

Where does it say you can regulate my rights?

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

#289

Post by mr_spothawk »

komali2 wrote: post #49
rahulmehta95 wrote: post #14

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…

there's a dead post from @Ataturk who nails my arguments against your point, but doesn't do so very nicely.

history should be a guid here.

presuming penis-size conversation is anything more than an intentional dig by a chauvinist powermonger, probably isn't helpful here.

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

#290

Post by cwkoss »

smokeyj wrote: post #132
airstrike wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being “mindful of their actions” doesn’t necessarily mean they are doing the right thing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t really get why anyone would want drones to be less accurate, but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right?

> but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right? More specifically, a warmongering fool who can't discern a false dichotomy - because your options in life are rarely ever drones vs more lethal drones. These regions we're using drones in. They could probably use more tools to enable true democratic representation. Isn't that what Google should be doing, given that they "don't do evil"? Building…

Hell, our own country could probably use more tools to enable true democratic representation.
Post reply on HN