Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they did tho. At least to Stalin. Had they not, all of Europe would now be Soviet Union. This is also why Japan was nuked — to ensure compliance, and create better leverage in negotiations. Otherwise the red army could just continue as far as it wished to go and take over the rest of Europe.
I would strongly argue that the motivation for nukeing Japan was not to give the Soviets an impression but to ensure that American troops didn't have to land on hostile beaches on the Japanese mainland. The decision was mainly made to save American lives by forcing a Japanese surrender
Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
601–610 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing more immoral than working for Google. Stop your bullshit, people working for it are cowards contributing to spy machine.
There are plenty of jobs that are more immoral than working for Google. You don't even have to look outside of the tech field. I'm sure someone is making a lot of money helping distribute child pornography over the internet. Plenty of tech jobs in human trafficking, too, I would imagine.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#603Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#604This is too bad that the fear of retaliation exists for a letter like this. Is this actually the case? Or did the author read into them wanting to remain anonymous incorrectly? Perhaps they didn't want to become a spokesman for this issue outside the company, but are fine making their opinion known to coworkers and managers.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Democracies are in retreat around the world, and I only hope we wake up before it is too late. What are you advocating? Arming governments with autonomous killer drones in order to "protect democracy"? Because the world is a "dangerous place"? I don't even...
Considering that democracy means people choosing their government, the power would need to be in the hands of the people, not the government, to protect democracy. What will the population do if the government goes rogue and imposes autocracy? Some might say this is the purpose of the second amendment.
Well no, that's just one aspect of democracy that can't even remotely serve as a sufficient condition for democracy.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#606Earlier 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…
Waco and Ruby Ridge had an endless arsenal of small arms. It didn't help them.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#607This 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…
I'd say it's stupid for people to fuel those "powers" that use real, threatened or imagined conflict with each other to exploit and control mostly them.
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/from...
> WALLACE: Of course, our, our main concern as human beings, certainly in this part of the world, is to survive, and to stay free, and to realize ourselves. How does all that you've said affect our ability to survive, and to stay free, in this world that is now in crisis?
> FROMM: Well, I think you touch upon a very important point here: namely, we must make a decision of values...If our supreme value is the development of the Western tradition - of a man for whom the highest thing in life is man, for whom love for man, respect for man, and the dignity of man, are supreme values - then we cannot ask the question that says, "if it is better for our survival, might we drop these values?" If these are supreme values, then they are there, and whether we live or we die, we shall not change these values. But if we begin to say, "Well, maybe we can cope better with the Russians if we also transform ourselves into a managed society......if we, as somebody put it the other day, train our soldiers to be like the Turks, who have fought so bravely in Korea...if we are willing to change our whole way of life for the sake of so-called "survival," then I think we do exactly that which threatens our survival. Because our vitality, and the vitality of each nation, rests on the sincerity and depth of the faith in the ideas which it announces, or pronounces. I think our danger is that we talk one thing, and we feel and act another thing.
Generally, whenever I hear people talk about inevitability, while ignoring how much of our world "is" because of the things we repeatedly decide to do, I have to think of Richard Stallman:
> Somebody is saying this is inevitable - and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true.
As for China and how we must not allow a mineshaft gap, there's this Chinese proverb:
> He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount.
If you don't have corpses in your basement, there's a lot of people scared shitless of you, and they'd love nothing more than for you to get onboard. Don't get onboard.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#608On 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…
They are uncomfortable with killing people even though a technologically-advanced military is probably a good thing. They are comfortable with tracking and manipulating millions of people even though it's definitely a bad thing. This is squeamishness, not morality.
Re: Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know multiple people who work at Google that are quitting because of this. Lots of people have lines in the sand when it comes to violence and military work, but those lines are deep for a reason and they don't really want to talk about them so you'd never know.
That’s convenient.
Try just going to eat at the Pho place across the street from Google in Boulder sometime, you'll hear people openly complaining about Sundar and Susan and chatting about their latest projects at full volume without a care in the world.