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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by Slansitartop »

wilsonnb wrote: post #440
dragonwriter wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation. So, in the universe you are writing from, the Kargil War would have been an impossibility?

India and Pakistan aren't really powerful nations in the nuclear sense that the US and Russia are. I assume the person you are replying means powerful nation as "nation with a lot of nukes", which is pretty much only the US and Russia. US Nukes: 7300 Russia Nukes: 8000 India Nukes: 90-100 Pakistan nukes: 100-120 Everyone except the US and Russia nukes: ~1100 (source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/nine-nati…

> India and Pakistan aren't really powerful nations in the nuclear sense that the US and Russia are.

100 nukes is powerful enough.

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

#942

Post by kevinmchugh »

reacweb wrote: post #889
cmontella wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a roboticist at the beginning of my career working on drones, I decided then and there that I would never make "bombs", a metaphor I used to mean anything that could be weaponized. I realized a lot of the work I was doing was funded by DARPA, and I was very cognizant about my research being used in this way. And like Dr. Kearns suggests, it's not entirely black and white. Would my path planning algorithm be used t…

If all the engineers who have a sense of ethic refuse to work for military projects, it implies that military projects will be performed by less ethical than average people. It is frightening. IMHO, avoiding military projects because of ethic is counterproductive.

Richard Gatling thought his most famous invention would cause wars to be shorter and less brutal. More deaths faster would mean faster surrenders, he thought. He is a weapons inventor who thought he was doing something ethical.

Instead, he made war and death cheaper. He made it more likely. In his lifetime, machine guns were deployed asymmetrically, making it cheaper for colonial empires to kill large numbers of the colonized.

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

#943

Post by lsc »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #901
lsc wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're taking the idea too far. look at what the civil engineers have: https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/ Yes, yes, we have a responsibility to not defraud people, and to not work on obviously evil projects, and even to speak out if your employer is, say, building a bridge that is not up to the clearly defined, established standards. (which is super different from when you think a bridge will collapse, but…

> look at what the civil engineers have Well, that's a narrow view of ethical guidelines in conducting one's work. We all generally agree that people shouldn't be evil. My question sits above that. Is it enough for a moral society to simply decline to do evil? Or do we have a responsibility beyond that? And if it's the latter, then whose responsibility is it?

Declining to do evil, with real standards for what that means is, at the very least, a good first step, and a possible one.

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

#944

Post by ionised »

reacweb wrote: post #889
cmontella wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a roboticist at the beginning of my career working on drones, I decided then and there that I would never make "bombs", a metaphor I used to mean anything that could be weaponized. I realized a lot of the work I was doing was funded by DARPA, and I was very cognizant about my research being used in this way. And like Dr. Kearns suggests, it's not entirely black and white. Would my path planning algorithm be used t…

If all the engineers who have a sense of ethic refuse to work for military projects, it implies that military projects will be performed by less ethical than average people. It is frightening. IMHO, avoiding military projects because of ethic is counterproductive.

You are not going to change the military from the inside anymore than Snowden could change the NSA from the inside.

Thinking you can is naive at best.

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

#945

Post by ionised »

jstanley wrote: post #784
killjoywashere wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. As consequentialist first move, let me suggest that a first order principle for the US military is "Sweat now or bleed later". Better to work your ass off to develop superior tactics, discipline, and technology now than die later. No one hates war more than soldiers.

If soldiers hate war so much why do they join up?

Predatory sign-up practices in low-income neighbourhoods, and a systemic and relentless propaganda campaign starting in nursery school that instils jingoist rhetoric and military worship.

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

#946

Post by [deleted] »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #752
betolink wrote: post #731

From the movie "Flash of Genius" about Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper: "I can't think of a job or a career where the understanding of ethics is more important than engineering," Dr. Kearns continues. "Who designed the artificial aortic heart valve? An engineer did that. Who designed the gas chambers at Auschwitz? An engineer did that, too. One man was responsible for helping save ten…

The reason Rome was so influential was its military. Ditto for the US. Are you sure it's a good idea to become less influential on the world stage?

[deleted]

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

#947

Post by bitL »

bb88 wrote: post #871
drtz wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... there's almost always somebody more unscrupulous, devout, or patriotic than you who knows or is willing to learn what it takes to finish the job ... If you believe that doing something is wrong, the idea that someone more unscrupulous will do it if you do not must not be used as an excuse for doing that thing yourself. Giving in to this notion will prove yourself to be the one who is unscrupulous.

In 2018, the following statements are true: 1. If you're on an active battlefield, both sides have already agreed that killing people is morally justified. 2. If the enemy is shooting at you, he is not interested in the ethics of killing someone on a battlefield. 3. If ethics helped wars end, there would be a US Army 27th Ethics Brigade to parachute in, but there's not and probably never will be. If on a battlefield,…

What's the point of life if you are forced to be evil, unquestionably and irrevocably? Why so many vets have PTSD and end up doing crazy things?

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

#948

Post by taneq »

jsilence wrote: post #847
colordrops wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost any technology can be weaponized. It's not about the particular technology you work on, but who it's being built for and the intended application.

please help me understand how a substance that turns sand into soil, developed to green the deserts, can be used as a weapon. To me this argument that "anything can be used in evil ways" is a poor excuse used to distract from the issue.

I can't find a reference but there was a story about a drummer or bugler or something in an army, and when his side was defeated the opposing prince was about to kill him, and he said "No, I have done you no harm! I never bore weapons against you, I only played my instrument so my friends would be encouraged."

And the prince said "by aiding them you killed my men" and slew the man.

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

#949

Post by ionised »

wilsonnb wrote: post #477
Tossrock wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there was no involvement of the judiciary system. See the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, and more to the point, his son. Oh, and also his daughter now, I guess.

I'm familiar with that specific case but it's an exception to the rule. The OP seems to think that extra-judicial killings by drone strike are a common occurrence and the evidence does not support that. I'm not saying I support it from a moral standpoint but I don't think it's fair to call them extra-judicial except in a few cases.

> I'm familiar with that specific case but it's an exception to the rule. The OP seems to think that extra-judicial killings by drone strike are a common occurrence and the evidence does not support that.

No, it is the rule.

Drone strikes are incredibly high in collateral damage. The estimate is 28 unidentified people for each 1 target;

https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_ki...

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

#950

Post by chapill »

sterlind wrote: post #759
chapill wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if I help develop A.I. that can be used for all sorts of things, one of which happens to be military-related, is the effort "evil" There's a famous quote for this: It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter. ht…

I completely agree with the loaded-gun metaphor, but doctors are a very different kettle of fish. Doctors are healers. The Hippocratic oath - "do no harm" - is the logical conclusion of the practice of medicine. Medicine heals, which is the opposite of causing harm. Avoiding harm is the only consistent metric of success, which explains the oath's persistence for millennia. Can you think of a consistent, concrete set…

I think healing has less to do with it than liability. Snake oil salesmen used to be a thing.

What currently sets programmers apart is the lack of liability. Programmers write their own get out of jail free cards. We call them EULAs.

If a doctor screws up and leaves a clamp inside you after surgery, he is sued. If a programmer screws up and leaves a debugging backdoor in a shipped product, nothing.

>Can you think of a consistent, concrete set of ethics that would draw unanimous support among programmers?

I think if programmers can't come to a consensus on that answer, then legislators will do it for them.

If you look around, we're actually witnessing this happening right now. Populist anger has erupted after Equifax, Cambridge Analytica, and Uber. NYT opinion pieces call for changes in liability law around programming.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/opinion/equifax-accountab...

And it's not just talk. Changes have already started. Section 230 was recently modified to make small changes in liability of web hosts. In response, Craigslist went full nuclear option in protest and dropped their Personals section. Almost nobody noticed, which means in the next round, law makers will be much more bold in applying more liability to the businesses of programmers.

Google's "Do no evil" was the closest thing I think we've witnessed to a Hippocratic oath for programmers. That's long gone now. Now it's all jerk tech, exploit your users for content and then demonetize them with no recourse or redress.

I don't think the west can get any wilder, so the pendulum is going to go against us from here on out. Programmers should be getting ahead of this, but like all dumb humans, we will sit stupidly. We will only react to immediately obvious consequences instead of preparing for the storm on the horizon.

Post reply on HN