Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially • Hacker News Board

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#391

Post by kinsomo » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:05 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #224

slg wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because they oppose the drone warfare program, which is killing noncombatants in nominally allied countries. I don't understand this logic. Drones are a weapon. They are not any more evil than any other weapon that the military uses. They aren't killing people autonomously. There is a human pilot behind every death. The pilot just happens to be hundreds or thousands miles away from the aircraft. Would we be fine wit…

"If your problem is with killing people, it should be with the people who ordered the killing and not the specific weapon that was used to carry out the killing." Drone strikes, as they are used, are a more evil way of taking out identified targets of other nationalities. I find the concept of a nation state summarily assassinating people a bit troubling, but drone strikes make it even worse by making it imprecise an…

> Drone strikes, as they are used, are a more evil way of taking out identified targets of other nationalities. I find the concept of a nation state summarily assassinating people a bit troubling, but drone strikes make it even worse by making it imprecise and cheap.

There's no significant difference between a drone-strike and a conventional airstrike by a manned aircraft, at lest when it comes to targeting, precision, etc.

Drone-strikes might even be better than conventional airstrikes because the pilot may have less workload (therefore more focus) during the strike part, meaning fewer errors and mistakes.

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#392

Post by knuththetruth » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

rifung wrote: post #103

blackrock wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is a conflict of interest. The public has put their trust into Google for 20 years. We supported them. We cheered them on. We have voluntarily given them all our personal data. Our emails. Our instant messages. Our voices. All of it feeds into their massive database for them to mine. We put our faith into them, in the hopes that they would honor their creed, that they would do no evil. But gradually, that…

> There is nothing that will stop this. The military will find a defense contractor to do their bidding. But Google can voluntarily elect to remove themselves from this sector. Let some other company do it. Let someone else figure it out. The blood of dead innocent civilians will be on their hands. You don't see Raytheon, Boeing, or Northrop crying about it. I work at Google but opinions are my own. This is actually…

Here’s a good summation of the inherent moral problems of this project by the International Committee for Robot Arms Control:

https://www.icrac.net/open-letter-in-support-of-google-emplo...

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#393

Post by dahdum » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

hapnin wrote: post #228

cheschire wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military's purpose in modern times is not to bring peace, it is to preserve peace. I find it an important distinction, as "bringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. To "preserve" peace implies, at least to me, that the military is focused on the peace of the home population, and may take action el…

The idea of the military preserving peace is like thinking a group of horny boys will preserve virginity. The US is the most aggressive military on Earth. There's no peace in its presence.

That's a hypothesis without much backing, history shows an interventionist hyper power reduces conflict.

We've seen Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica, and now Pax Americana.

There could be shining utopia without military conflict in the future, but personally I'd rather not take the risk during my lifetime. Many equally matched opponents has historically resulted in brutal warfare.

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#394

Post by fixermark » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #263

slg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you are being a little facetious with the Death Star line, but I think that bares a distinction because it would be a WMD and part of its intended purpose is to kill civilians. Likewise in our world developing indiscriminate killing WMDs like bio-weapons deserves extra scrutiny. Drones are not indiscriminate killing machines any more than manned aircraft. If they are used indiscriminately, the problem should b…

It’s “purpose” is to protect the empire - it is a tool. It’s intended as a deterrent. Repeat indefinitely for all “tools” (There’s an entire subreddit dedicated to it. The empire did nothing wrong) You can Always justify making a bigger better gun or “tool”. Don’t make tools you wouldn’t want used against you. Tech engineers in particular are more than normally exposed to the ideas of weapons and responsibility of cr…

Or, perhaps, the optimal survival strategy of a nation-state is to make the thing you don't want used against you until it becomes so onerous that international standards move to ban it.

Gas warfare was banned after WWI, but during WWI, both allies and central powers used it before it was banned. Nuclear weapons are banned... After the Allies used them twice.

International bans on intolerable weapons are a great idea. Unilateral disarmament of a useful weapon with no international ban may be suicidal.

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#395

Post by spiderPig » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:11 PM UTC

grigjd3 wrote: post #364

spiderPig wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it the other way, if Lockheed martin were to start a Gmail, GDocs equivalent tomorrow, would you use their services knowing how closely they work with the military? Would global users be comfortable using it? The whole PRISM fiasco isn't far from this. What's stopping the Pentagon from buying access to users data? It's a trust thing, imo.

I make use of GE related products all the time and GE does military contracting. I fly on Boeing aircraft and Boeing makes military aircraft.

Yeah but GE isn’t in the business of collecting personal data about you and selling it. Google business is data not jet engines

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#396

Post by Quarrelsome » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #389

Quarrelsome wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you suggested bombing schools to "prevent future generations of insurgents". You're advocating genocide. You were being flippant but now you're acting innocent over it which belies a fabricated ignorance that is further insulting. Conflict and arms is a complex topic and simplifying it to "just don't kill people lol" is crass at best. Either engage with the arguments or go to a school about to be bombed in this perce…

You said there may be merit to bombing weddings. Why is it any different to bombing hospitals, nurseries, scholyards etc? Those are all civilian targets. Edit: In the spirit of reconcilliation, I would like to explain that I didn't accuse you of anything, much less advocating genocide (I don't even think that bombing a school is genocide; infanticide, at scale, maybe- but, genocide? I don't see that). I felt you are…

If its a wedding where a large number of key figures will be then its arguable.

Somehow I see that as far more rational outcome than a meeting of key figures in a nursery or a schoolyard unless you're going to war against babes or schoolchildren which suggests you have bigger problems.

Introducing the school/nursery begs the question though:

> If someone surrounds themselves with children 24/7 but commands an army or commits otherwise potentially savage deeds are they immortal in your eyes from a direct attack?

The blurring of combatants and non-combatants happens often in practice, especially as the scales tilt strongly toward one actor. Its easy to argue your point when your the scales are even and between completely non-civilian and professional armies but when those lines are blurred your position makes one completely incapable of action.

For example, if an army took its entire family onto the battlefield as civilians how would you respond? Would you consider the non-combatants civilian? Would you authorise the user of air-power against enemy positions? If a standing army has no barracks and operates from their respective family homes are their families still effectively civilians or just non-combatants and as murderable as an army technician or medic?

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#397

Post by fsloth » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #358

annabellish wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the theory, yes, and to a point it's even true, but the US military is _not_ being used in this way. There is no challenger for "ultimate political power" within the US region. Their spending and investment is well beyond what is necessary to keep up with the "competition", of which there is effectively none. It is merely the continual expansion and growth of an already vastly overqualified force which hasn't…

There is no challenger for "ultimate political power" within the US region How quaint - "regions" don't exist with modern weapons. To say the US doesn't have to worry in it's "region" is laughably naive. Their spending and investment is well beyond what is necessary to keep up with the "competition" Also quaint. China is able to leapfrog decades and trillions of dollars of US spending on defense due to modern technol…

While in general I agree with your realpolitik viewpoints this example was perhaps not the best thought out when rationalizing the application of US military resouces:

"not to mention daily active engagements over Syria/Iraq/Afganistan etc."

That's like saying it's ok to first smash windows and then charge for replacing them and being happy about how good you are in mending broken windows. It would be better no to break the fucking windows in the first place.

While US is a stabilizing force in eastern Europe and the pacific, it has totally fucked up the lives of millions in the middle east area by it's interventionist escapades. The only charitable interpretation would be that US views world history through the narrow disfiguring lense of it's own revolution which was an astounding feat by any measure. It's as if they all believe that if you just give rebels guns then a George Washington will be magically summoned to lead the country in good order to a proper form of post-despotic administration.

Of course there are lots of other reasons to interfere in other countries, but given how easy it seems to be politically to engage in these activities I can't figure out anything else masking common sense.

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#398

Post by fixermark » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #170

meritt wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no bending necessary. Google defined [1] what they meant in their IPO filing. > We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains So it boils down to the simple interpretation: Is helping the U.S. military consistent with doing good things for the world? Public opinio…

For what it's worth I also worked for Google for many years. And I'm hardly a shrinking liberal violet. I think it was stupid to fire Damore. But the mental gymnastics on display in this thread are depressing. Is helping the U.S. military consistent with doing good things for the world? Google has always been a global company with most of its users and employees outside of the USA. You can't even stop yourself talkin…

> and Afghanistan is hardly a country to begin with, neither country has ever posed a military threat to the USA.

I hate to call out the elephant in the room, but there are about 9,000 people who might disagree with you---3,000 we'd have to assume, because they are dead.

Nation-states don't have the excuse of "We're barely a country" when their territory can be used to launch an asymmetric attack by private terrorists on another nation. At best, that's an abrogation of responsibility. Since the Taliban was in charge at the time, I'd call 'abrogation of responsibility' way, way too charitable an interpretation.

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#399

Post by devy » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:16 PM UTC

rifung wrote: post #103

blackrock wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is a conflict of interest. The public has put their trust into Google for 20 years. We supported them. We cheered them on. We have voluntarily given them all our personal data. Our emails. Our instant messages. Our voices. All of it feeds into their massive database for them to mine. We put our faith into them, in the hopes that they would honor their creed, that they would do no evil. But gradually, that…

> There is nothing that will stop this. The military will find a defense contractor to do their bidding. But Google can voluntarily elect to remove themselves from this sector. Let some other company do it. Let someone else figure it out. The blood of dead innocent civilians will be on their hands. You don't see Raytheon, Boeing, or Northrop crying about it. I work at Google but opinions are my own. This is actually…

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons?

Watch this video[1] and realizing that Project Maven is contributing and enhancing the capability of the slaughter drones and knowing that current U.S. President(or future presidents) or any command chain above the drone operator( including the operator) can kill anyone (military personnel or not, in a war or not, in conflict zones or not, American citizens or not, yes there was a precedence from President Obama) with or without due process, with Google's AI, doesn't give you chills?

Yeah yeah I know if Google didn't do it someone else will. But for a company who's been claiming "Do No Evil" as motto from early on, I am holding Google at a higher standard - but obviously it has fallen from the moral highground. Hence being evil.

[1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/20/watch-out-for-killer-...

Re: Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

#400

Post by kinsomo » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:18 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #142

rifung wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing that will stop this. The military will find a defense contractor to do their bidding. But Google can voluntarily elect to remove themselves from this sector. Let some other company do it. Let someone else figure it out. The blood of dead innocent civilians will be on their hands. You don't see Raytheon, Boeing, or Northrop crying about it. I work at Google but opinions are my own. This is actually…

> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? In case your question is serious: There are still some of us who believe in peace as an end-goal for us humans, as a race. See Kant's "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophic... ) for a more detailed view on the subject. "Working with the military or developing weapons" are two activ…

> In case your question is serious: There are still some of us who believe in peace as an end-goal for us humans

Refusing to assist the military develop weapons doesn't really help that goal. A weak(er) military with a lesser technological edge could actually encourage war, as countries that aren't as bound by peace-seeking principles exploit the opportunity to wage war for their benefit. Basically, military weakness is destabilizing.

The refusal line of thinking makes a little more sense if you assume (in this case) the US will be perpetually militarily dominant, which I think is a bad assumption. It's also kind of racist assumption, since it assumes other nationalities are incapable of technologically leapfrogging the US or negating its military advantages.

That's not to say there might be good reason to not want to work on particular weapons systems that have specific moral problems to them, but I'd feel like you'd need a lot of detailed information to make those calls.

I think the most defensible type of objection to assisting the military is at the personal ethical/religious level.