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

Post by jpollock » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

sseth wrote: post #210

Darthy wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Democracies are in retreat around the world Nope. Not even in the slightest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waves_of_democracy.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy#Waves_of_...

The graph you are linking to ends in 1998, when Bill Clinton was in power, the US was the sole superpower, the EU was increasing in size, China's GDP was a tenth of what it is now, and i think Boris Yeltsin was running Russia, and most people had not heard of Osama bin laden. I think it is safe to say the world is different now. Look at the backsliding in Turkey, Phillipines, Burma, Venezuela, Egypt. Look at the regi…

Post by rjsw » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

treebeard901 wrote: post #71

danesparza wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory isn't short. You made a point of talking about cryptography. The US government also classified crypto as munitions in order to control its usage and export: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th... This had very negative effects on cryptography in general (see the FREAK exploit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREAK ) Also, why wouldn't this be employed to better monitor Stingray ( http…

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…

Post by tolgerias » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

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…

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

vowelless wrote: post #261

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?

Incidentedly, I worked on drones for the Navy and Marines for many years. My issue is with the hypocracy. Don't claim to be moral and sell this Kool aid. It sounds a lot like religious high priests that I have a viceral reaction to (given where I come from). It could just be my own personal issue with the faux moral sell of the valley.

Post by titzer » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:24 PM UTC

palisade wrote: post #218

Not helping them improve precision of the drone strikes reduces the precision of those strikes which leads to more innocent lives lost as collateral. An argument could be made that using AI to improve surgical strike capability of drones would be the lesser of the two evils. Seems misguided, no pun intended. Also, Google dropped the slogan "Don't be evil" in favor of "Do the right thing." Not that it matters because…