I also think that disengaging is the wrong approach. Google once disengaged with China because they didn’t agree with China on some freedom of expression laws and all the management now think that it was a bad decision. In similar vein, if you are not part of it, somebody else will shape the outcome of this.. It should be rather you if you really care and could play a role in minimizing the negative impact of such tech
Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
331–340 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody cares how many dimes those drones cost. War isn’t fought using the cheapest means available, but the most effective. Have you seen the size of the U.S. military budget? This country will continue to meddle in international affairs and, on occasion, get involved in bloody battles. Such is life. War is an integral part of our civilization and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. You can’t just wish…
Wrong attitude. It seems that, at this time in history, we have more tools at our disposal than ever before to avoid war. We have more capacity to organize and communicate now. Why should we continue to just assume that war is inevitable? I'm sure people had the same attitude toward the black plague in the middle ages. They probably thought "Oh well! All this bad air and holy wrath is inevitable. No way to avoid the…
War has never existed due to a lack of tools or technology. If anything, those things made war more deadly than ever (see WW1).
Wars exist because people are willing to kill and die for what they believe in. As Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means”
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it comes to life-or-death questions, we should make informed decisions. "Just trust me" fundamentally lacks any valuable information that furthers the discussion. In addition, "just trust me" also endangers less clear thinking people to sway based on emotion instead of well-founded cold hard facts.
The reality of Defense/Intelligence is that you do have to just trust some of us.
The reality of being a citizen of the US is that the intel community doesn't make it easy to do so.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you mistaking a swear word for intolerance?
No, the suggestion that any conflicting viewpoint is a sign of immaturity. No one would ever suspect someone who can't speak to a fucking stranger without cursing struggles with maturity as well.
Not to mention, encourages them to leave the country, or at the very least, state their objections and then put up with something they deeply morally disagree with (and basically violates international laws on human rights). Oh, and it's an action that's probably self-defeating. Offensive military capabilities indeed.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#335Earlier 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…
> Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense.
I think you are wrong. At least in Norway where I've lived for the last few decades I'm pretty certain people are found not guilty because of 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).
Persecuting minorities where completely lawful in nazi Germany.
I guess you should be looking for another word because as much as I'm against lawlessness that doesn't cut it here IMO.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#336Earlier 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…
> Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense.
If that's the case, I don't want to live anywhere else. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, they pose a deadly threat to my family. In what country would you not feel the same way?
> Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.
Not all states are benevolent, nor are they guaranteed to stay benevolent. Many Americans are wary of our gov't (and IMO rightly so.)
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This strikes me as a trolling comment. But if you're serious, and if you can pull the idea that the state owns all manifestations of the application of force out of thin air, then there is no limit to how many of your other human rights that state will take away from you. By giving up the right to self defense, something so fundamental to all living things, you effectively chain yourself in irons and tell your master…
The state in any case does have a monopoly on violence. That part was true.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#338Serious 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?
Doesn't the fact that this is another step towards autonomous killing machines complicate your view of this? A lot of Silicon Valley's justification for its immoral actions rests on the _belief_ of the inevitability of outcomes. It's ok to monopolize and centralize everything, discarding the lives of people who are negatively impacted because it's inevitable. It's ok to make robots able to kill people better because…
I find it pretty easy to believe that other countries will continue to funnel money into military operations even if the US slows or stops.
No, I can't prove that. But it seems like a very reasonable belief to have. What reason do you have to believe that it won't be so?
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#339But 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.)
> Given that these strikes will occur one way or the other, Holy poopers, no. Drone strikes are not like premarital sex. The fact that we're _here_ (that being autonomous killer robots firing missiles from the sky to kill "bad guys") and no one bats an eyelash, means we're already in some kind of massive fail scenario. We could, for example, go back to the rule of law. You know, before we believed that every bad guy…
I kind of agree with you. This is dystopian at this point. And I don't see how permitting this sort of thing wouldn't have massive consequences down the road, but then again I'm the guy who thinks intense negotiation at a table with a mediator, and/or deciding a dispute with some sort of sporting event, is a superior solution to simply butchering people with explosives en masse.