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

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by criley2 »

tc7 wrote: post #343
criley2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tartars are over the hills. Democracy is in decline. Authoritarianism is on the mega-rise. The state of democracy is bad and looking worse, and if the Brexit/Trump trend of destroying the EU and breaking up the Atlantic Alliance bear just a bit more fruit, you may find that these "Tartars" are a lot closer to you than you once believed. You call me blind to the future by looking at the past, but quite frankly, yo…

It's not obvious to me that democracy is in decline, or authoritarianism on the rise. Over what time-frame? Do you have supporting data you can point me to ("In the past 10 years, more countries have switched from democratic to non-democratic government than vice versa")? Thanks!

Sure. https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/01/daily-...

Is a great place to start.

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

#372

Post by MikkoFinell »

sseth wrote: post #135

Do we really want to test a theory that we can have a repeat of the 1930s when the democracies fell far behind an autocratic regime in the arms race, and again the autocratic regimes will not win? Democracies are in retreat around the world, and I only hope we wake up before it is too late. The military-industrial complex may have become far bigger and perhaps in some ways a burden, but the world is a dangerous place…

The world is currently the least dangerous it's ever been in history, and all data and all trends point that it will be even less dangerous in the future. Sorry but you're simply wrong.

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

#373

Post by rhizome »

airstrike wrote: post #230
rhizome wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I'll bite. Just falsify it: the Pentagon's killing machines have never brought about world peace, and world peace has never occurred while the Pentagon received killing machines.

You say that as if “world peace” was an attainable goal in any realistic timeframe. War doesn’t exist because people “hate peace”.

I didn't bring world peace into the thread, but at any rate there's also the saying that "All war represents a failure of diplomacy," which I tend to agree with. I also think "are indifferent toward" should replace "hate" there.

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

#374

Post by paulddraper »

Covzire wrote: post #279
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…

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.

At first thought, it seems 100% absurd that an ad-hoc underpowered group of people with small arms counts for anything in the modern age.

But history shows otherwise: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Empirically, every totalitarian state bans citizen firearms (Nazi Germany, USSR, Cuba, N. Korea). For "good" reason.

While of course different, crypto has many of the same pros and cons as firearms, and it should be supported for the same reasons.

https://xkcd.com/504/

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

#376

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

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…

have you watched "Good Kill" or maybe even are familiar with the work of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung's research on US military drone program at Ramstein airbase? I guess not, because what you're proposing are further crimes against humanity. If the US wants AI/autonomous weapons then they should agree to have their troops held accountable at the The Hague International Court of Justice.

- The Global Assassination Grid: The Infrastructure and People behind Drone Killings: https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8425-the_global_assassination_gr...

- The Drone Papers: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/

- Graphs, Drones & Phones: The role of social-graphs for Drones in the War on Terror: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7259-graphs_drones_phones

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

#377

Post by paulddraper »

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…

Crypto is a human right only in a lawless society. Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to complete privacy even from the govrenment.

Even more, many think they should be able to hide their actions from the state...that is the definition of a lawless society.

I get it, HTTPS is fun. But a human right? Definitely not.

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

#378

Post by lovich »

tolgerias wrote: post #315
tolgerias wrote: post #276

Earlier 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…

I can only reply to myself (low score?) but my point was not that self defense is not justifiable in extreme cases (though I made that point. I didn't choose my words wisely). What I mean is that by no means is the citizen expected to engage in vigilante justice or apply force against the state. That leads to lawlessness and was kind of hinted by the parent comment. The state should have the monopoly of force _to app…

The state decides what a lawful manner is, thats about as useful a statement as "it's not illegal when the president does it". The states only rules as long as a certain X% of the populace agress with it. The second amendment tries to balance that X so that it doesn't become something like o ly 1% of the populace needs to agree with the government for it to maintain power.

There's arguments to be made as to what percentage of the populace needs to agree for a stable society to be formed. Both extremes of 100% and 0% are obviously bad as you either get no agreement or total dictatorship.

Just saying that you should listen to the government though ignores the majority of the history of governments

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

#379

Post by User23 »

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…

The Catholic Church teaches that killing in self-defense in self defense is legitimate. In fact, it can even be a grave duty. So that means this is hardly just an American idea.

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

#380

Post by MikkoFinell »

davesque wrote: post #225
airstrike wrote: post #44

Earlier 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…

You're right about everything. But consider ISIS, what kind of communication should we perform that will make future groups like that stop beheading people and raping children? There are situations where violence unfortunately is the only option left, and in that case you will want it to be as targeted and clean as possible to avoid collateral damage. Currently drone strikes is the best tech for that purpose, and we have an incentive to make it better for the reasons previously mentioned.
Post reply on HN