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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by jimmy1 »

Asdfbla wrote: post #216
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…

While that may be the reality of things, it surely can't be a justification in any way. If anything, I'd be afraid to revert back to those dark times where technological advancements were driven mainly by military needs.

Can you elaborate more on why you consider those to be "dark" times?

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

#382

Post by plandis »

smokeyj wrote: post #211
plandis wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Id argue it's not a false dichotomy because drone strikes will go on regardless of what Google does. It's very clear that whatever collateral damage drones currently cause is an acceptable cost to the militaries using them.

"If you don't help make drones more accurate, you're the reason for collateralized murder". Or, you could like, just stop droning innocent people to death. Not saying we all have to agree, but just that factually speaking - it's within the realm of possibilities. And for that reason it's a false dichotomy.

> "If you don't help make drones more accurate, you're the reason for collateralized murder".

I never stated anything about blame, nor do I think that choosing to not participate makes someone culpable.

> Or, you could like, just stop droning innocent people to death.

I have not "droned" anyone.

> Not saying we all have to agree, but just that factually speaking - it's within the realm of possibilities.

It's possible, sure, but certainly not probable. Drone strikes are increasing, not decreasing. I don't think you're thinking about this very pragmatically.

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

#383

Post by tclancy »

airstrike wrote: post #222
tclancy wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this would all be a little more interesting coming from a different username.

For what is worth my nickname is from the Sigur Ros song Vidrar vel til loftarasa...

Ha, that's awesome!

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

#384

Post by salawat »

alistairSH wrote: post #294
jteppinette wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does it say you can regulate my rights?

WRT the 2A, it's right there in the text: "well regulated". WRT other rights... Explicitly? Not always in the Constitution. But, if you think you can cry "Fire!" in a theater, you would be mistaken. SCOTUS has upheld reasonable restrictions on rights over and over. It's a settled matter. (edited - cleaned up my thoughts a bit)

Stop quoting that case. That was SCOTUS upholding the right of the government to clamp down on speech that encouraged draft dodging or could even be marginally interpreted as disagreeing with it during wartime.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

It ain't Dred Scott dumb, but it's up there in stupidity and retarded law.

Well regulated doesn't mean the feds get to control the details of what the militia can use either. The militia is every able-bodied 18-47 year old. The regulated part implies a command structure which the National Guard provides.

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

#385

Post by merpnderp »

GiorgioG wrote: post #336
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…

> 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 a…

You make a great point. Police forces have been sued for responding slowly or not at all to threats on lives and found to have no responsibility to respond to a particular crime.

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

#386

Post by manfredo »

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…

Vigilantism isn't self defense. Even in states with the strongest self defense laws (e.g. stand your ground laws), you can only use force to defend yourself (and I think also your family or immediate companions) when you are threatened. You can't just prowl around shooting suspected drug dealers.

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

#387

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

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…

> our inalienable, universal rights

That school of thought dates from the 18th century when thinkers appealed to a Creator who endowed those rights (even if it was a rather aloof Deist conception of God). However, in the following century it faced strong competition from the utilitarian school that suggests that rights are only a convenient fiction that society recognizes for the common good. Plus, these days ever more people do not believe in any particular Creator who could have endowed anyone with rights.

Human ethics, metaethics and politics is definitely nowhere near "laws of physics" settled and agreed on.

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

#388

Post by pretendscholar »

sqdbps wrote: post #2

"As Google defends its contracts from internal dissent, its competitors have not been shy about publicizing their own work on defense projects. Amazon touts its image recognition work with the Department of Defense, and Microsoft has promoted the fact that its cloud technology won a contract to handle classified information for every branch of the military and defense agencies." Google should stop hiring activists an…

Pragmatist must mean greed over morality. I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to the ethically dubious actions of the US Military.

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

#389

Post by jstarfish »

stale2002 wrote: post #228
friedman23 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just imagine if we stopped spending on defense in the 80s when the cold war ended and we had to deal with today's Russia with decades old technology

We aren't going to go to war with Russia, despite the propaganda that everyone is spreading. Wars between nuclear countries don't happen any more.

I suspect conventional war is a thing of the past.

Cyber-warfare is going to be where it's at. You spend years infiltrating adversary networks, backdooring critical systems/infrastructure and exfiltrating intelligence so when the time comes for conflict, you already know what cards they're going to play, where all the pieces are on the map and you can shut it all down with a few commands. Then you start your blitzkrieg unopposed.

It's telling Russia, China and North Korea so heavily encourage cyber-espionage and malware development. Meanwhile in the US, we've got idiots passing laws criminalizing mere infosec research. We're handicapping ourselves against a threat our adversaries are all too eager to employ.

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

#390

Post by Clubber »

paulddraper wrote: post #374
Covzire wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't forget the Revolutionary war, when we were the Guerrilla force.
Post reply on HN