Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

armscontrol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#121

Post by nil_pointer »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #63
ryanmercer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the person you asked but I suspect their comment is along the lines of how Google employees threw a fit when learning about working on a military project (Project Maven) fairly recently but didn't make any noticeable objections when Google was like "why yes China, we will gladly build a custom censored search engine just for you" as well as opening the Google AI China Center which you can basically guarantee is l…

It looks like Dragonfly is cancelled too. https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/google-china-censored-se...

The only reason we knew about it the first attempt was because it was leaked, whose to say they won't just try again in the future...

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#122

Post by rifung »

mrguyorama wrote: post #52
rifung wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's difficult to say this isn't a net moral good, as things currently stand. I disagree but am open to being persuaded otherwise. I don't consider national defense to be an immoral goal. I believe it's unrealistic for there to exist a world without weapons. That being the case, I believe it's important for us to constantly improve our military capability otherwise we will be left behind.

>I don't consider national defense to be an immoral goal My personal opinion is that what the United States has been doing for over 20 years has not been national defense

I agree but I consider improving military capability to be orthogonal to decision making into what the military does. If we wait until the military does only that with which we agree, then it may already be too late.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#123

Post by darawk »

avmich wrote: post #117
darawk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how exactly does that mean "if we don't get them, they'll get us"? What it means is that not acting is as much an action as doing so.

Not acting is always as much an action as doing so, if you consider actions abstractly. In this case I don't think it deserves stating.

It did in the context of what I was replying to, which is why I stated it.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#124

Post by michaelmrose »

tivert wrote: post #72
rifung wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run I work for Google, opinions are my own. I agree. However I think in the case of Google and most other companies, the issue is a little more.. awkward? Besides the fact we have offices in other countries, we also employ many people in the US from other countries. Obviously those people may have very di…

> [at Google] we also employ many people in the US from other countries. Obviously those people may have very different feelings about working on a project for US national security. I don't think I've been on a single team at Google which did not have people from abroad. I honestly think the US military would have more problems with having foreign nationals working on a military project than many of the foreign natio…

A hostile foreign power has access to millions to billions of its own citizens and a tiny number of agents who are US citizens because of the comparative difficulty in acquiring agents because such a situation is risky for both parties.

Given substantial financial resources like a state actor getting that person to naturalized status seems relatively trivial.

It may simultaneously be true that on average natural and naturalized citizens are equally loyal, moral, and trustworthy and naturalized citizens in sensitive areas are a risk because it makes it easier for foreign powers to infiltrate you because of the comparative difficulty of acquiring the services of a natural born citizen.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#125

Post by jahaja »

tengbretson wrote: post #47
mLuby wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it is defensible that a greater balance of power might be a net good for the world. (Also the devil is in defining net good). And it is also quite defensible to restrict hard power to ethical channels. There's a reason we don't use chemical weapons even though they would definitely give us an edge: The moral harm outweighs the tactical benefit. (Until it doesn't, as we saw in Syria.)

I don't want a balance of power. I want most moral actor (however flawed they may be) to have a technical and tactical advantage over those that would behave immorally. The world didn't get together and unanimously decide to stop using chemical weapons. The few strongest forces in the world decided that no one was to use chemical weapons, and by that threat of force the world became a better place.

Flawed? Is that it? Most moral according to US citizens is a pretty significant blind spot.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#126

Post by [deleted] »

darawk wrote: post #87
JohnFen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing.

> So we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing. Might makes right to decide what is right. That is now and always will be the case.

[deleted]

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#127

Post by per4 »

hopler wrote: post #84
tossaccount123 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is actively helping the Chinese military by opening their AI center in China. Every bit of the IP they develop in China will be in the hands of the government and thus weaponized by the Chinese military. Yet I haven't heard a peep of protest from the same people who criticized project Maven https://taskandpurpose.com/google-china-artificial-intellige... https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/13/alphabets-google-opens-ch…

That's a basic AI research center, and it's hiring people away from other projects they could be doing in China.

You won't hear much peep from these people. They're a product of opulence and they'll turn a blind eye when the Chinese and Russians get ahead because of their tantrums.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#128

Post by per4 »

izacus wrote: post #118
ambicapter wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> World policy is not a zero sum game The Pentagon does not deal in World Policy, it deals in martial policy. As General Mattis said, "If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately".

And as we've seen, it'll eat all the money you can throw at it and even more, even if it means no healthcare, education or basic infrastructure in the country they're supposed to defend. Militarys appetite for money is limitless.

I think I get your drift. We should start by providing healthcare for all by taking it from defense budget.

We should stop all spending on any defense projects and start negotiating world peace with all the countries at United Nations. I suspect that will be agreed upon very soon since obviously who doesn't want a prosperous world?

Why do others not see your wisdom?

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#129

Post by sodosopa »

They're perfectly ok with scanning emails and providing that data to hostile countries and getting someone shot in the face, but if the person is shot in the face with an AI-powered weapon, they're not?

Wow the faux ethical reach-around they've giving each other over this is comical.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#130

Post by sodosopa »

chrisco255 wrote: post #5

Isn't it inevitable that AI will be used to improve targeting technology for weaponry? Am I wrong in assuming that if U.S. doesn't develop this tech some other country will?

If AI can reduce friendly-fire or weapons striking the wrong target, isn't that saving lives where both of those examples currently kill an extraordinary number of innocent people?
Post reply on HN