Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project • Hacker News Board

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

#491

Post by monfrere » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

mieseratte wrote: post #55

robert_foss wrote: post #22

As an engineer I have serious moral qualms about furthering the goals of any military. Contributing means being complicit. The fact that the military funds research doesn't change that.

That these Google engineers support a global surveillance network that stalks and spies on everyone while taking a moral stances against military projects is truly laughable. Keeping "free" nations safe and prosperous is as fine a goal as any.

Not everyone thinks that the U.S. drone program has much to do with keeping free nations safe and prosperous.

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

#492

Post by lliamander » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

almost_usual wrote: post #365

abalone wrote: post #195

I completely support the employees but it is criminal that this NYT article does not mention the extensive roots of Silicon Valley in Pentagon funding. SV as a whole is substantially a creation of military spending. Just recently in the AI space: - Siri was spun out of a Pentagon project -- look up SRI International and CALO. Its purpose: a "soldier’s servant".[1] - Autonomous driving is a direct evolution of Pentago…

It starts well before Silicon Valley, Engineering Departments get large portions of their revenues through Defense programs. MIT's Lincoln Laboratory made 27% of their revenue (roughly a billion dollars) in 2016. That's one research center. http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html

"Engineering" as a concept itself has roots in military application. The term "civil engineer" was coined precisely to distinguish the application of engineering techniques outside of the native context of military works.

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

#493

Post by ocdtrekkie » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:47 PM UTC

wilsonnb wrote: post #489

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A non-military entity (the CIA), which should not be operating military hardware (but does), assassinates targets without due process (or really, any hard evidence at all), in countries we aren't at war with (formally or otherwise). Depending on our relationship with the country in question, we may or may not bother to let that country know we're going to kill some of their citizens ahead of time.

Putting aside moral issues with the CIA, what's the legal reason that they should not be operating military hardware? As far as I know, CIA assassinations of foreign citizens aren't illegal as long as they take place outside of the US. There was at least one instance of a drone strike killing one or two American citizens which is definitely extra-judicial. Most drone strikes do not kill American citizens so referring…

It certainly is illegal in the country in which they do it. As far as I know, pretty much all foreign intelligence work is technically illegal where it's conducted.

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

#494

Post by deadmetheny » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:48 PM UTC

gfo wrote: post #391

GiorgioG wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life? Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? The same people who are large proponents of the 2nd Amendment also seem to encourage a massive defense budget which seems backwards to me.

>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?

I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. I'm not going to wait and find out if you would attempt to kill me as a result of discovering you are burglarizing my home.

>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?

Nobody is under any illusions that the US military could roll through with tanks and cluster bombs and annihilate any opposition, but I doubt the government is particularly keen on ruling over a pile of ruined infrastructure. If that's the case, they instead have to deal with a large population of armed guerillas, which the Mid-East conflicts have proven the US is rather poor at dealing with. To say nothing of the fact that a large portion of the US military would defect upon being told to fire upon the people they've signed up to defend. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to deter the government from using overt force.

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

#495

Post by wilsonnb » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #493

wilsonnb wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting aside moral issues with the CIA, what's the legal reason that they should not be operating military hardware? As far as I know, CIA assassinations of foreign citizens aren't illegal as long as they take place outside of the US. There was at least one instance of a drone strike killing one or two American citizens which is definitely extra-judicial. Most drone strikes do not kill American citizens so referring…

It certainly is illegal in the country in which they do it. As far as I know, pretty much all foreign intelligence work is technically illegal where it's conducted.

That is technically true but I do not think that's what the original poster meant by "extra-judicial".

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

#496

Post by gaius » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:52 PM UTC

VikingCoder wrote: post #488

gaius wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other extreme is that some folks actually have a conscience Those people are not working in AdTech.

You want to have that conversation with them? Because some of them are right here. In fact some of them just got shot at yesterday. Is it hyperbole, or do you honestly feel that trying to connect users with products they might like is inherently unconscionable?

As I said yesterday, if someone needs something, they’ll just go out and buy it. Ads are fundamentally about using psychological tricks to make people buy things they don’t need, or even want once the manipulation has worn off

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

#497

Post by crb002 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

A.I. is commodity compute. You can't pull out.

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

#498

Post by mkempe » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:54 PM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #387

mkempe wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

Not at all. The concept of natural rights merely means that by our nature we have rights. The schools of thought that led to that identification and to the foundation of the US based on the ideal of a government exclusively tasked with securing these rights goes back at least to the 15th century (Aristotle and other Greek thinkers already were inching towards the idea that there are things that are right to protect in the polis despite what others may think or the laws may impose; for example, read Antigone by Sophocles).

What is it in human nature that concretely and morally entails our having rights? the faculty of reason and its crucial role in human life, as long as we are free to act according to our thoughts. No faith involved, no mysticism required.

[added] The Founding Fathers did not create a theocracy. I don't see what point you are trying to make -- the concept of natural rights does not require a god, and it is irrelevant whether some person invoked deism or not. The fact is that we are all born with inalienable rights by virtue of our nature, what we are and how we ought to live together.

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

#499

Post by dilippkumar » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:55 PM UTC

rebuilder wrote: post #465

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…

I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? For every right that most people hold evident, you'll find people who disagree. This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.

> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate?

The US was built upon the idea that rights are inherent and not granted to citizens by a government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

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

#500

Post by pascalxus » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #221

mkirklions wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have refused to work for defense companies, I try to encourage my friends and sibling to avoid these companies. Boy they pay great though...

Compared to FANG companies not realy

FANGs defeat themselves by putting themselves in COL areas that are really high thus reducing their relative compensation to 1/3 or less, even with all that stock. That's pretty easy for govt to beat.