I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on • Hacker News Board

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#51

Post by giardini » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:31 PM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #21

neals wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the innocent victims that we make today will get us on track to developing better drones with more resolution and less errors and doubt. I imagine a perfect drone without any human controller, doing it's business by AI, actually making the world a better place. [edit] lots of hate and naive comments. Fact remains that human progress has always come through sacrificing some of us for the greater good. Innocent…

What a disgusting point of view. The only thing that would make the world a better place is if the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it. For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to…

fit2rule: "the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it."

And what happens when people who accept those plants, schools and education are killed by people who don't want them to accept those gifts from us? Back in the Vietnam era I made the same argument you do (for awhile). But the VC learned to kill villagers who accepted aid. The same thing goes on today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.

In a better world, one without war, I would agree with you. But that is not the world we live in. Sometimes you have to think things through to second-order and higher effects.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#52

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:34 PM UTC

atrus wrote: post #35

ck2 wrote: post #4

The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed. Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA? We need an international ban on armed…

But the same thing happens with soldiers on the ground too. There confusion and accidents when people are shooting at each other all the time. That entire article could have easily been replaced with a marines perspective, a bombers perspective, or a sailors perspective.

[deleted]

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#53

Post by fit2rule » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:34 PM UTC

yeukhon wrote: post #46

fit2rule wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've identified the problem - deonotology - but not the solution. Anyone who kills for a living, is violating the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth: life is sacred. You can't educate a dead man.

The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance…

Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human - since human lives are being removed from the universe as a result of their actions.

This goes for the current Joint Chiefs of Staff as much as it does any historical figure.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#54

Post by rickdale » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:34 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #4

The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed. Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA? We need an international ban on armed…

I don't understand how we can have a the technology for a drone but we can't fly it close enough to get a good quality photograph. I am all for limiting casualties for the US, but how is it not a war crime to just kill people without 100% proof they are the enemy?

And seriously, if cell phones are going to 39 megapixels, why can't a drone send back a good photo?

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#55

Post by belorn » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:35 PM UTC

neals wrote: post #11

fit2rule wrote: post #6

I think that one thing we 'normals' don't seem to understand, is that when you are in the business of killing, murdering, maiming other human beings, you're no longer really part of society. Society is determined by the survival of its members - start removing them, and you get a lesser society. That is obvious. But we in the 'normal' society don't have a clue what those in the 'murdering business society' really thi…

You seem very opinionated about this. I haven't given this as much thought as you have, but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something. Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?

> "but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something."

A very much black-and-white description of the current war. "Evil" is actually the most descriptive form about an enemy that can't be specified, a war that selects its foes arbitrary and which lacks any specific goals for winning. Lacking all that, all a person can say is: "we are protecting the good side that is us from the evil that are them". There is no more specific way to describe it, which also means it can never actually end.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#56

Post by fit2rule » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:36 PM UTC

giardini wrote: post #51

fit2rule wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a disgusting point of view. The only thing that would make the world a better place is if the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it. For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to…

fit2rule: "the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it." And what happens when people who accept those plants, schools and education are killed by people who don't want them to accept those gifts from us? Back in the Vietnam era I made the same argum…

The cost of one drone would provide ample resources for a village in Afghanistan to educate itself and defend itself from other killers.

Drop books not bombs!

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#57

Post by 1457389 » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:36 PM UTC

atrus wrote: post #35

ck2 wrote: post #4

The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed. Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA? We need an international ban on armed…

But the same thing happens with soldiers on the ground too. There confusion and accidents when people are shooting at each other all the time. That entire article could have easily been replaced with a marines perspective, a bombers perspective, or a sailors perspective.

The difference is that we don't deploy our soldiers in the contexts and use-cases that we do with drones, because the risks are too great. Drones are expendable, so they are used in hostile conditions where the intelligence isn't as clear. That's why in practice they lead to high false positive rates. The real question is whether we should be using this technology to be waging war in areas where we wouldn't have done so otherwise.The choice between risking blood vs. risking electronics leads to a dangerous degree of latitude in how these weapons are deployed, that leads to a subsequent increase in civilian casualties which need not have occurred.

Public health researchers face the same issue every day when they decide whether or not to deploy a new treatment with unwanted side effects. If the false positive rate of your diagnostic heuristics is too high, then the overall damage to society can easily outweigh the effectiveness of the treatment, no matter how technologically advanced or curative it is.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#58

Post by Killah911 » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:36 PM UTC

I've worked on building some AI for drones for the US, and I'm fairly certain that advents in new technologies will mitigate most of the concerns in the article. It will make for a seriously scary new world, where devices like this exist at massive scale. Dictatorships will be even more brutal, and oppressors, even more oppressive. The sociopath in control of these machines will no longer have to worry about someone not carrying out orders properly due to emotions or questioning their judgement.

All that aside, the one aspect I don't see getting resolved is the psychological effects of someone relatively "normal" & smart watching the horrors and carnage of war and then heading to the grocery store for some ice cream after his/her shift. Unlike being in a miserable (i.e. battlefield) place where your body is filled with adrenaline and a good chunk of your mental resources are dedicated to keeping yourself alive and getting the hell out of there alive. Having the time to reflect on the serious inequities in the world that you've just been witness to can't easily be swept under the rug. Even if the systems are mostly automated and pictures have a higher resolution, provided that the person/analyst/commander behind the screen is a somewhat sane and intelligent member of society, the psychological tolls might be worse when you're experiencing carnage thru relative safety.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#59

Post by yeukhon » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:37 PM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #53

yeukhon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance…

Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human - since human lives are being removed from the universe as a result of their actions. This goes for the current Joint Chiefs of Staff as much as it does any historical figure.

> Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human

Sorry, this is rubbish. This society we know of is built and established with guns and blood. We shall not have police, army or even guns. We fought wars. Your ancestors, my ancestors all fought in war one way or another. If you think that self-defending yourself against some murderer is wrong, then what is the purpose of protecting life?

Life is precious. Why are we killing cows and chicken? I supposed you are animal rightist then. That's anti-animal as anti-human (but humans are animals!)

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#60

Post by girvo » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 4:37 PM UTC

yeukhon wrote: post #46

fit2rule wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've identified the problem - deonotology - but not the solution. Anyone who kills for a living, is violating the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth: life is sacred. You can't educate a dead man.

The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance…

Um, yes. Capital punishment is barbaric and disgusting.