211–220 of 418 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turning away will slow things down but AI for military applications will happen. Someone will fill the void.
That doesn't make it ok to be the one to fill it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Is pursuing an AI that kills 10 bad guys but saves 20 good ones overall bad? - Yes. If your philosophical development is to the point where there are clearly defined good guys and bad guys in your mind I suggest you read more.
You actually are implying that there are no bad guys? Under no standard of humanity would ISIS or the Taliban be confused for good guys. There are a lot of grey areas in the world for sure, but acting like badness is just a matter of opinion is ridiculous. There is evil in the world.
The argument here isn't that the people have the right to defend themselves. The argument here is that a person wearing a suicide vest is bad and deserves to die for being bad. They are evil. This argument is used by governments and religions throughout history to justify killing. Often by both sides of a conflict. It's a worn out argument, old and tired. Who is the judge of what is evil? The only long standing definition for evil involves religious context to believe. Anything else is poorly defined, not widely agreed upon, or hard to test against.
'Evil-skeptics give three main reasons to abandon the concept of evil: (1) the concept of evil involves unwarranted metaphysical commitments to dark spirits, the supernatural, or the devil; (2) the concept of evil is useless because it lacks explanatory power; and (3) the concept of evil can be harmful or dangerous when used in moral, political, and legal contexts, and so, it should not be used in those contexts, if at all.'[0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't address the main point of my comment, so I'll ask again more directly: are you suggesting that the government create regulation that compels companies, (and thus individuals) to do work on military technology that it deems relevant to national interests? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?
What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"? I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected. The connection is the hubris that enables Google to benefit from public largesse while simultaneously believing itself to be superior to it (and by extension, the public). Like it or n…
I'm still confused as to how "we don't want to work on systems that kill people" is in any way "superiority".
In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population.
You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public.
That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves.
Hence my continued confusion.
What does that even mean? Internationally accepted? By what nations and people groups? I’m pretty sure China and Russia have different accepted norms than Norway and Canada - which ones will you adhere to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I philosophically underdeveloped if I think it's pretty clear that 20 merchants and shoppers in a souk are the good guys, and the people with suicide vests on are the bad guys?
An argument that relays heavily on racial prejudice and emotional appeal is philosophically underdeveloped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But Google has no intention of doing the right thing anymore than Microsoft or Disney does. These are corporations and their executives HAVE to do what they think will be best for the corporation. Not what they think is best for mankind. This is how for profit businesses currently work. And PR saying anything to the contrary is simply not true.
This is a gross generalization that people trot out as if it were unassailable but never back it up with any support. Corporations are run by people with a complex set of motivations and constraints in which they make decisions. Some of them make decisions with intent to harm. Some make decisions with intent to help. No one person is automatically turned into a ruthless amoral person just be being employed at a corpo…
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/3pv8bh/is_it_really_tr...
So, I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt if they have a change of heart upon reconsidering an issue, but this coming after the fact rings a bit hollow to me. I think the only principle at play here is that it became a PR issue. That's fine, but let's be honest about it. Early emails between Google execs framed this project only in terms of revenue and potential PR backlash. As far as we're aware, there…
The emails you're aware of framed it in those terms. Do you think a leaker might selectively leak with the intent to paint a particular picture? As someone who has helped write policy, it is literally impossible to write up all policy in advance. You always end up weathering some angry insights in the comment section (we used to call it the peanut gallery). If you can write out all policy a priori, every CEO, economi…
At some risk of proving your point:
At least you're honest about your contempt for the common man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Japanese were hardly already defeated. Had the bombs not been dropped, the United States would have invaded Japan directly, island by island, until the country surrendered. The loss of life on both sides would have been tremendous. Source: My grandfather had orders to go and do exactly that when the dropping of the bombs ended the war.
This is of course one of the justifications American leaders used, and as always the victor gets to set the perceived historical narrative. Politically it was extremely important for the US to believe the bomb materially shortened the war given the huge amount of resources the Manhattan Project had consumed that otherwise could have been invested elsewhere in the war effort, especially when the military had to justif…
Even after Nagasaki, it took personal intervention from the Emperor and the foiling of an attempted coup for Japan to surrender.
Of course, dropping the bomb and developing the bomb are two distinct, albeit related, ethical questions.
I guess Google's policy of sucking up any and all data doesn't go against internationally accepted norms.
This entire article reads like BS if you think about what Google actually does.