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

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by jeremyjh »

grellas wrote: post #533

Where does one draw a line these days among the personal, the moral, the legal, and the political? The military application in question is legal and is approved by a duly elected government that supports it politically. In earlier days, employees generally would see this as just doing their jobs in developing technology that their employers wanted developed and would not concern themselves about ultimate uses and app…

There are still people living who, in the middle of the last century condemned other people to death for only doing their jobs. Of course, a future AI may decide to simulate our reality and torture you for a subjective eternity if you do not do everything in your power in this reality to bring that AI into existence. You plays your cards and you takes your chances, but in general its simpler if you try to do what you honestly believe is morally right. And if you honestly believe that the right thing to do is pummel our society with shitty advertising then please do your very best.

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

#582

Post by Natsu »

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?

From our own human nature, actually. Think about this for a minute. Would a normal person be willing to believe something because you were forced to? If someone was violently attacked, would they not fight back?

By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead force government to work with that human nature instead of contrary to it.

Now, the current conflict is being caused by pitting these against each other. Because people believe they are unsafe because of people who own guns or use hate speech, you now have two groups of people who believe that the other group is making them unsafe.

This is ironic, because we're actually becoming statistically safer over time, but it does lead to some very real conflict because people believe there's another group out there that wants to harm them, instead of realizing that both sides really just want to protect themselves, barring a few fringe whackos on either side.

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

#583

Post by rifung »

kbenson wrote: post #142
waisbrot wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research for the military isn't the issue here, it's Google's changing agenda. If the DoD or Raytheon or Weapons Systems Startup LLC hired someone to develop a better system for analyzing drone images, I don't believe that person would be complaining that their work was being used for war -- that's exactly what they signed up for. The problem here is that Google sold their engineers on "Don't Be Evil" and libertarian…

Engineers have a right to complain, and to attempt to steer the company, and to leave if they don't like where it's going. I'm more referencing the parent comment that calls Google out as shameful. Not all military work is shameful, and some that is viewed one way initially might be viewed otherwise over time as future uses are found for the fruits of that labor. > The problem here is that Google sold their engineers…

> And they specifically dropped that when they changed to Alphabet, so the writing was on the wall for people to see

Still there actually. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

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

#584

Post by jacquesm »

cyphar wrote: post #567
jacquesm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naming it 'defense' is already a huge stretch. I realize every country does this but it is as much or more about projecting power all across the globe as it is defense.

> I realize every country does this but it is as much or more about projecting power all across the globe as it is defense. I disagree that "every country" does this. Many countries in Europe and Asia do not use their defense forces as a tool for attacking other countries and getting involved in regional conflicts that were only affecting people in those countries. And countries that do it are usually just "helping"…

> I disagree that "every country" does this.

I meant that they call their armies/airforces/navies 'defense'.

> Many countries in Europe and Asia do not use their defense forces as a tool for attacking other countries and getting involved in regional conflicts that were only affecting people in those countries.

I wished that were true, but almost all deployments of EU troops over the last 4 decades fall into that category. And there have been a lot of those.

> And countries that do it are usually just "helping" US-lead invasions of countries (an example would be Australia -- the single reason we were ever in the Vietnam War was because of the US).

Ditto Iraq, Afghanistan.

> While I may be a biased given that America bombed my home country and engaged in a "peacekeeping mission" when I was a child, for a civil war that had been going on for many years and had nothing at all to do with the US, I never understood how Americans can see invasion of other countries as being anything other than that.

Agreed, they are invasions, and the worst ones are the ones under some kind of pretext.

Where are you from originally?

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

#585

Post by Natsu »

manofstick wrote: post #524
dilippkumar wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

Which was exactly what the parent had said. i.e. > This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements. Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because the say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean that they are) Mind blown huh?

That's what they believed, but it isn't necessary. It's easier to see these arising out of very fundamental parts of human nature.

Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea.

Therein you have a basis for the first and second amendment, i.e. freedom to think and freedom to defend yourself.

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

#586

Post by BookmarkSaver »

rhizome wrote: post #146
airstrike wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed

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 are blatantly embedding a false premise here; that the goal is or should be world peace.

That is an absolutely inane stance to take. How about instead of the obviously unattainable and unrealistic goal of "world peace", we just go for "more peace", or "less violent death" or similar goals. It is very hard to argue that American hegemony has not significantly reduced conflicts around the world. Not all of them, not equitably, and generally in pursuit of economic rather than ideological interests, but there is basically nothing to be gained by opening up the US to actually being threatened by competing powers.

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

#587

Post by rmah »

acct1771 wrote: post #546
laughingman2 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then please petetion your senator to deregulate tanks, fighter jets, nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles, submarines etc. If you are serious about arming civilians as protection to overthrow tyranny, do a better job.

Please explain Vietnam.

It is a myth that the Vietnam war was mostly a war between US conventional forces against Vietnamese guerrilla forces.

In point of fact, the majority of the battles the US military and ARVN engaged in were against the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). That is, conventional forces vs other conventional forces. While the VC (VietCong) were very active and played a crucial role in the eventual victory of North Vietnam over South Vietnam, they were never the primary military force deployed by the communists.

Moreover, the VC were not just guys with AK's. They had the full panoply of military hardware that light infantry uses: from anti-tank rockets to mortars to light anti-air missiles. The VC even had a few tanks. The VC did not engage solely in small unit guerilla operations either. Once in a while, they would launch major offensives using coordinated assaults of 10's of thousands of soldiers.

What history has shown is that while insurgencies can cause problems for established regimes, without outside logistical and financial support (i.e. supply of arms, food, money, etc) they usually cannot win.

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

#588

Post by AndyNemmity »

walshemj wrote: post #209
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's fair enough but you have to decide if your cool with that and resign if you have moral beliefs that run counter to your employers You come across as wanting that sweet sv $ and benefits without having to make any moral choices - if you got to work for CNI company's you know what the deal is. And before you ask yes I did face that at my first job when I analysed some high speed film from one experiment and thou…

I disagree strongly. Employees are a stakeholder in the company, and if they can band together to enact change on the companies goals for a moral purpose, then that is an option as well.

If their efforts fails, they can choose to resign, or take other actions as employees in history have. It's not the only option, it may be the only option ultimately that succeeds in removing yourself from complicity.

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

#590

Post by darawk »

danesparza wrote: post #31
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…

My memory isn't short. You made a point of talking about cryptography. The US government also classified crypto as munitions in order to control its usage and export: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th... This had very negative effects on cryptography in general (see the FREAK exploit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREAK ) Also, why wouldn't this be employed to better monitor Stingray ( http…

Yes, they made some bad choices, and then they corrected them. They also funded the research that created the field. Things can be morally mixed. On balance though, the US military funding for cryptography has been pretty clearly a good thing.
Post reply on HN