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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by mmirate »

paulddraper wrote: post #377
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…

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.

It would appear that your sarcasm went undetected.

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

#422

Post by mantas »

stale2002 wrote: post #241
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 don't particularly care. Nukes are enough to stop any war from happening between any of the most powerful countries in the world. What else do we even need? The various factions in the various civil wars around the world can kill themselves in their own war, and we shouldn't be a part of it killing even more people.

What about smaller countries without the nukes? Fall to the next door neighbour, regardless if you like their regime or not?

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

#423

Post by wilsonnb »

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.

India and Pakistan went to war briefly in 1999 and both of them had nuclear weapons at the time (and still do, I think). I wouldn't rule out the possibility of future wars between them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

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

#424

Post by IAmEveryone »

nickpinkston wrote: post #407
opportune wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it's reminiscent of decrying "virtue signaling" as if there is anything bad with doing something because it's virtuous We shouldn't make fun of people because they "do the right thing". That sounds like something Facebook would do

The problem is when you write off your culpability to do more because "At least I did something" via virtue signaling. So no, it's not wrong to virtue signal necessarily, but often is seen as an empty gesture by people who don't talk/act towards the actual problems.

It's an intellectually dishonest argument, because it actually uses someone's profession of good intentions, accepts them, and then somehow turns it against the speaker.

As used on the internet, it's also useless because it always assumes the speaker doesn't actually act on their believes, and there usually is no way for them to prove their willingness to act on their believes.

It also ignores that even just stating such believes can have an effect. After all, these statements are used to convince others to adopt them.

The best proof of the last point may actually be this protest by Google employees: their conviction was probably formed by reading and hearing about the ethical responsibility of engineers, a topic that is certainly teeming with "virtue signalling" according to the common definition. They might even be the product of Google's own "virtue signalling", i. e. "Do no Evil". Maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin only ever wanted to pay lip service to ethical behaviour. But their employees didn't get the full memo, took them by their word, and are now acting upon it.

In this sense, "virtue signalling" aka "Greenwashing" or "diversity boilerplate" may start as a cynical profit-motivated lie, and end up changing the world for the better.

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

#425

Post by opportune »

nickpinkston wrote: post #407
opportune wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it's reminiscent of decrying "virtue signaling" as if there is anything bad with doing something because it's virtuous We shouldn't make fun of people because they "do the right thing". That sounds like something Facebook would do

The problem is when you write off your culpability to do more because "At least I did something" via virtue signaling. So no, it's not wrong to virtue signal necessarily, but often is seen as an empty gesture by people who don't talk/act towards the actual problems.

Sure, and I agree that Google shouldn't stop here. But then again there is a difference, at least in my opinion, between doing something that helps the military in a support role and doing something that actively assists them in killing people. Letting the military use google cloud or google search is different than working on an AI-assisted targeting system for drones. That is where I would draw the line for myself.

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

#426

Post by Natanael_L »

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…

Self defense should definitely be a right, and I'm not American - I'm Swedish. There's a big difference between responding with full force, or as Swedish law allows, responding with reasonable force proportional to the harm that you're at risk of.

Any limits to the right to intervene should not go further than what the state can fill in for. Since the police is not everpresent in our lives (and shouldn't be!), there will inevitably be situations where you need to fend for yourself, since you can't always just wait for police to arrive.

You can put this through some translation software of your choice;

http://www.domarbloggen.se/sodertorns-tingsratt/ansvarsfrihe...

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

#427

Post by shpongled »

tc313 wrote: post #140
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…

IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.

Except you can own an RPG in the US... It's an NFA classified destructive device. You can also own cannons, tanks, or attack helicopters if you have the money.

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

#428

Post by needToSay »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #204
vowelless wrote: post #3

On one hand, I reluctantly appreciate Trump's election because it will force silicon valley to think many times before readily giving up user privacy to the US government. I felt like the attitude was very lax under Obama (despite the Snowden revelations). On the other hand, this bothers me a bit because it continues to allow people in the valley to maintain a (sorry to use this word) delusion that what they are doin…

> allow people in the valley to maintain a (sorry to use this word) delusion that what they are doing is "moral" People refusing to work on military technology isn't "appearing moral". It's just "moral", at least if you consider war to be generally amoral. People here and elsewhere have been throwing the term "virtue signalling" around a lot in the last year or so. This is a perfect counterexample: Google employees s…

There's nothing more immoral than working for Google. Stop your bullshit, people working for it are cowards contributing to spy machine.

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

#429

Post by rexpop »

rasz wrote: post #410

Im confused, do people working at Google not know the origin of their company? There would be no Google if not for Pentagon funded military research. Look up "Highlands Forum", DLI, MDDS. Sergey Brin was literally funded by NSA and CIA under MDDS.

People can advocate away from their origins. It's not hypocritical for the child of a rape to advocate against rape.

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

#430

Post by hnal943 »

cloudwalking wrote: post #138
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…

It does not, because the 2nd amendment protects arms, not munitions (for example, bombs).

I think the distinction is between "arms" and "ordinance". Reading through the comments here, it seems "munitions" is a super set of both.
Post reply on HN