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

Where things stand with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#341

Post by qsera »

mrs6969 wrote: post #252
qsera wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But don't tell me you can be so naive as to believe that the U.S. military is a defensive I am not. Every country is corrupt, and war makes a lot of money for powerful people, but does it justify sabotaging your own existence?

Literally yes. If you justify harming others out of nowhere by ‘sabotaging your own existence’ then yes. ‘Sabotaging your own existence’ is a magic sentence that can justify everything. Israel can kill children more than any other nation in the world, and justify it by ‘not sabotaging their own existence’ Anyone can do anything with this perspective. This is the exact point gere. Pull yourself back, if you are about…

Sure, any one can say anything. But I am not referring to that. I am talking about a case where it is objectively true.

But I think that is a question that anyone would rather not consider.

The issue is that if you don't consider that question, and jump into discussion or actions, in general just have an "outrage", then it would be very hard to take you seriously.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#342

Post by pbh101 »

mckn1ght wrote: post #325
jadar wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You don’t need religion for ethics or worldview. How about: we all appear here on this rock, none of us know why, we’re all in it together, we all struggle, none of us know if we’re alone in this universe or what the universe really is. This unifies us all and puts us on an even playing field. We should be compassionate to one another as we all come from the same circumstance. We can create a concept of god to explai…

This exhibits the borrowing GP mentions: your ‘should’ does not necessarily follow from the stated priors. Why is compassion morally mandated by the priors and not competition, for example?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#343

Post by donkyrf »

hax0ron3 wrote: post #287
BryantD wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also in Good Will Hunting , when Will (Matt Damon) delivers a scathing job rejection to the NSA. 1997. The War on Terror has a lot to answer for. https://youtu.be/tH0bTpwQL7U

The late 90s were full of media that questioned reality and authority - like X-Files, The Matrix, Dark City, all sorts of websites about conspiracy theories and UFOs, etc. The zeitgeist was full of speculation about hidden truths. The cultural mood was defiant and sardonic. There was rap, rap-rock, Beavis and Butthead, Fight Club, Office Space... One of the most popular pro wrestlers in the world played a character w…

The late 90s were also a time of Law & Order, The West Wing, Apollo 13, and Saving Private Ryan.

And today is a time of Andor and Succession....

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#344

Post by CamelCaseCondo »

the_af wrote: post #315
hax0ron3 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The late 90s were full of media that questioned reality and authority - like X-Files, The Matrix, Dark City, all sorts of websites about conspiracy theories and UFOs, etc. The zeitgeist was full of speculation about hidden truths. The cultural mood was defiant and sardonic. There was rap, rap-rock, Beavis and Butthead, Fight Club, Office Space... One of the most popular pro wrestlers in the world played a character w…

You're right. And the military in movies used to be depicted as inflexible, stubborn, paranoid, incompetent, and usually either "the bad guys" or authorities that impeded the progress of the main characters. (With exceptions; I'm not forgetting about Top Gun). Then there was a sudden switch, with the military shown with cool gadgets, airplanes, tech, heroics, and generally being glorified. The transition must have ha…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93entertainment...

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#345

Post by foobiekr »

hglaser wrote: post #18

It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…

In 2000 I worked for a company that was building a mobile telephony and data product. The partner company asked us to help them implement the lawful intercept function, as is required by law, which we did, however they were asking for 5+% LI traffic when the common practice was 2-ish%. Our hardware was exceptional, we could trivially have done 100% at line rate with zero impact. The engineers all stepped aside, and finally: "Fuck those guys. They get their 2%."

It's one of the better ethical moments I've had in my career of working for _mostly_ very ethical companies (so obviously not any social media or crypto).

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#346

Post by slantedview »

hglaser wrote: post #18

It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…

Let's not imply the world changed on its own. Trump changed it.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#347

Post by dotancohen »

komali2 wrote: post #313
dotancohen wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post reads as if you would rather those aggressors who threaten America to not be disposed of. How is the world a better place with the aggressors than without?

We're talking about Americans. What genuine threat did Venezuela or Iran pose to Americans ? Corporate interests don't count.

Do you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#348

Post by godelski »

ashdksnndck wrote: post #270
somenameforme wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It’s not that big of a coincidence that the countries that superpowers want to conquer, and need defending, are neighbors to the superpowers.

So much so that it's actually the expectation!

Country wants to expand its territory? Most likely place to extend to is those in its borders. It's literally the lowest hanging fruit.

Small country being invaded by large country? Who are they most likely to turn to? Does it seem that unlikely that they'd go to the biggest actor who doesn't like that country? The enemy of my enemy?

Coincidence? I think not! It's literally the most logical thing

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#349

Post by dotancohen »

the_af wrote: post #340
dotancohen wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post reads as if you would rather those aggressors who threaten America to not be disposed of. How is the world a better place with the aggressors than without?

None of the recently attacked countries posed an imminent threat to the US. In what kind of deranged world are we living that people are fighting against the notion that waging war on another country should be a costly decision !? My, the Overton window has indeed shifted far.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN