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

41–50 of 159 posts

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

#41

Post by EliRivers »

NotAnEconomist wrote: post #35
mattnewton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article makes it feel like these changes happened because less people are enlisting or know people enlisting. I think that’s just another symptom of how some military programs lost a lot of legitimacy in the minds of some of my generation who were coming of age around the war on terror. It’s hard to feel like the good guys in a lot of these issues like drone warfare against non-combatants, and so the military was…

I think the media has a lot to do with that. They run stories about how the military bombs some civilians while fighting jihadists, but not about how those same jihadists routinely round up and torture children, kill scores of locals, etc. Outside of Iraq, which fuck Bush, can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing? I think it's a really shallow view to say it's better to…

can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing?

Blowing up people's weddings via drone? Corroding civil liberties? Equipping small-town police forces with military equipment and mentalities?

I could go on. There is a lot more to dislike than just the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

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

#42

Post by rifung »

daviross wrote: post #22
drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

> Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses It's difficult to say this isn't a net moral good, as things currently stand. Competent tools put to immoral ends aren't somehow more moral than incompetent tools. The only fix is to change the ends.

> 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.

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

#43

Post by partiallypro »

daviross wrote: post #22
drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

> Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses It's difficult to say this isn't a net moral good, as things currently stand. Competent tools put to immoral ends aren't somehow more moral than incompetent tools. The only fix is to change the ends.

That's well and good until China is invading Taiwan and Russia is invading Ukraine and there is no deterrence from the west to make them think twice.

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

#45

Post by whatshisface »

tengbretson wrote: post #29
daviross wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses It's difficult to say this isn't a net moral good, as things currently stand. Competent tools put to immoral ends aren't somehow more moral than incompetent tools. The only fix is to change the ends.

That only holds true if you consider the military rivals of the United States to be greater forces for good in the world than the US. I would consider that an indefensible position.

The stance held by Google engineers seems to be more subtle than that, although it is fairly clear: a weapon produced by an American company may go either to kill a civilian in a pointless war in a country nobody has ever heard of (high-probability), or to kill a Chinese soldier in a future war for the survival of our country (low-probability). The US government could address this by improving the mix ratio between pointless wars that benefit nobody and wars for the survival of our country, so that a weapon would be more likely to end up used for the latter than the former.

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

#46

Post by the_duke »

NotAnEconomist wrote: post #35
mattnewton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article makes it feel like these changes happened because less people are enlisting or know people enlisting. I think that’s just another symptom of how some military programs lost a lot of legitimacy in the minds of some of my generation who were coming of age around the war on terror. It’s hard to feel like the good guys in a lot of these issues like drone warfare against non-combatants, and so the military was…

I think the media has a lot to do with that. They run stories about how the military bombs some civilians while fighting jihadists, but not about how those same jihadists routinely round up and torture children, kill scores of locals, etc. Outside of Iraq, which fuck Bush, can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing? I think it's a really shallow view to say it's better to…

You seem to be implying that it's perfectly fine for the US to bomb a family home if a terrorist is in there, accepting civilian casualties, because they might harm the population?

Who gets to make that determination? A random drone pilot? An officer?

Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.

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

#47

Post by tengbretson »

mLuby wrote: post #33
tengbretson wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only holds true if you consider the military rivals of the United States to be greater forces for good in the world than the US. I would consider that an indefensible position.

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.

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

#48

Post by bogomipz »

DannyBee wrote: post #15
ve55 wrote: post #3

But yet all 4,000 of them still work for the largest surveillance corporation that has ever existed. At least now they think they have the moral high ground.

Ah, the ole "sitting on the sidelines is helpful" argument. It's morally defensible for sure, and neutral, but pretending it is actually helpful is wrong. It doesn't help in any meaningful way to change things (in any direction) if you sit on the sidelines. Ironically, people who are the ones who always seem to think the have the moral high ground. Of course that doesn't mean you have to join google to make a differe…

>"Ah, the ole "sitting on the sidelines is helpful" argument."

That's not even the OPs argument, nor is it some "ole" argument. You have both put words in their mouth and framed it as some classic well-known fallacy of which it is not.

The OP is making the distinction between "voting with your feet" which takes real commitment and has immediate effects versus "signing a letter"[1] which involves nothing more than a few seconds of your time without having to leave your desk.

If Google has trouble attracting talent due to matters of conscience it directly impacts its abilities to build new services as well as improve existing service in order to increase revenue.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-...

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

#49

Post by cordonbleu »

EliRivers wrote: post #41
NotAnEconomist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the media has a lot to do with that. They run stories about how the military bombs some civilians while fighting jihadists, but not about how those same jihadists routinely round up and torture children, kill scores of locals, etc. Outside of Iraq, which fuck Bush, can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing? I think it's a really shallow view to say it's better to…

can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing? Blowing up people's weddings via drone? Corroding civil liberties? Equipping small-town police forces with military equipment and mentalities? I could go on. There is a lot more to dislike than just the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

yes, as a country we have to stop playing into the fear that is being peddled to us.

Terrorism is not about fostering abuse of constitutional rights and responsibilities, it is about fostering fear of our constitutional rights and responsibilities.

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

#50

Post by adventured »

Apocryphon wrote: post #31
drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

The U.S. arms industry is huge, and so is defense spending. If the DoD wants better talent, then budget accordingly and pay high salaries and fix up their recruitment messages and surely some smart CS grads will go to them. Why should our military be dependent upon SV civilian companies that have workers who don’t want to work on military applications? Then just hire the ones who do, fund new military-oriented startu…

That's exactly the scenario we'll see over the next ~20 years, as parts of Silicon Valley refuse to go along with the Pentagon.

The military industrial complex will put tens of billions of dollars into backing new start-ups that will cooperate over that time. Those companies will receive favoritism from the state over time, to Google's detriment. That will include technology transfer and regulatory favoritism (AI will be a regulated industry 10-15 years from now, and will be regulated forever thereafter). For every worker in Silicon Valley that refuses to do military work, the Pentagon will find 100 outside of Silicon Valley that are more than happy to do so. Numerous large companies up and down the tech chain will cooperate as well, including Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, IBM, Oracle, HP, Dell, Cisco, TI, Micron, nVidia, and dozens of others. The contracts they receive over time will be a lucrative part of their business (it already is in many cases).

Post reply on HN