I want to write software that helps kill people. • Hacker News Board

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#51

Post by b6 » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 2:53 PM UTC

nkorth wrote: post #40

rmc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns are an interesting case. Thee are many tools (eg computers, knives, hammers) that can be used to kill someone, but most of the uses of them are not killing people (more tomatoes are cut with knives than people killed). I'm not so sure about guns. Are most of the instances of guns being fired being used to kill/hurt someone (or practice to kill/hurt someone)? Perhaps it's the European in me that can't wrap my hea…

I don't agree with it, but I think the American idea of guns is like what you said about knives: hunting guns are okay (like how kitchen knives are mostly used to cut tomatoes), but there's a line drawn somewhere for "assault weapons" (nobody cuts tomatoes with a switchblade). Personally I think that although this idea makes sense for knives, guns cannot be justified because they have no purpose other than killing (h…

> guns cannot be justified because they have no purpose other than killing

Suppose someone is trying to kill you or your loved ones. Do you really not see how a gun could be beneficial? Do you really not see how killing someone could be the right thing to do?

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#52

Post by nkorth » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 3:01 PM UTC

b6 wrote: post #51

nkorth wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with it, but I think the American idea of guns is like what you said about knives: hunting guns are okay (like how kitchen knives are mostly used to cut tomatoes), but there's a line drawn somewhere for "assault weapons" (nobody cuts tomatoes with a switchblade). Personally I think that although this idea makes sense for knives, guns cannot be justified because they have no purpose other than killing (h…

> guns cannot be justified because they have no purpose other than killing Suppose someone is trying to kill you or your loved ones. Do you really not see how a gun could be beneficial? Do you really not see how killing someone could be the right thing to do?

Yeah, I know my view is idealistic... Having a gun for self-defense may be reasonable, but killing is never "the right thing to do" except as an absolute last resort in such situations.

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#53

Post by jimfl » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 3:16 PM UTC

If you work at McDonalds, you probably fed a soldier or a weapons designer, or CIA field operative. You'd have to drop out of productive society entirely to escape this dynamic.

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#54

Post by peterwwillis » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 6:36 PM UTC

It's even worse than that! I hear people use hammers to build buildings where people work on military projects that eventually kill people! Clearly, we need to stop people from using hammers for evil. Boycott the hammer industry today.

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#55

Post by rmc » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 6:41 PM UTC

nkorth wrote: post #40

rmc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns are an interesting case. Thee are many tools (eg computers, knives, hammers) that can be used to kill someone, but most of the uses of them are not killing people (more tomatoes are cut with knives than people killed). I'm not so sure about guns. Are most of the instances of guns being fired being used to kill/hurt someone (or practice to kill/hurt someone)? Perhaps it's the European in me that can't wrap my hea…

I don't agree with it, but I think the American idea of guns is like what you said about knives: hunting guns are okay (like how kitchen knives are mostly used to cut tomatoes), but there's a line drawn somewhere for "assault weapons" (nobody cuts tomatoes with a switchblade). Personally I think that although this idea makes sense for knives, guns cannot be justified because they have no purpose other than killing (h…

My hunch is that hunting guns are a minority (or small percentage) of all gun firings, whereas with knives, it's the other way. The illegal killings (with knives) are the (small) minority.

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#56

Post by rmc » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

b6 wrote: post #51

nkorth wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with it, but I think the American idea of guns is like what you said about knives: hunting guns are okay (like how kitchen knives are mostly used to cut tomatoes), but there's a line drawn somewhere for "assault weapons" (nobody cuts tomatoes with a switchblade). Personally I think that although this idea makes sense for knives, guns cannot be justified because they have no purpose other than killing (h…

> guns cannot be justified because they have no purpose other than killing Suppose someone is trying to kill you or your loved ones. Do you really not see how a gun could be beneficial? Do you really not see how killing someone could be the right thing to do?

Do you really not see how widespread gun ownership can be harmful?

On the front page is a story about someone recovering a camera from a thief. One comment says that confronting the thief could be dangerous, since they might have a gun ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5505464 ). Here in Ireland if some low level criminal stole my camera, they wouldn't have a gun when I meeting them in a café.

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#57

Post by ctdonath » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 8:56 PM UTC

wildermuthn wrote: post #27

ctdonath wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very easy question to answer. The answer is "no". There was no ill intent, no expectation of misuse, no "mens rea" ("guilty mind"). The intended and expected market is very large and overwhelmingly upstanding. The good done far outweighs the freakish non-sequitur bad. You don't not do something just because, with a twisted line of reasoning, someone can conceive of 1 in orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude chan…

I don't think it is so easy, especially if you are rigorous about your criteria and reasoning. Double-effect has four criteria for making a judgment in any particular case. The intent of the maker is only one of the four. The most pertinent criteria in the case of the hunting rifle and school shooting scenario is the last, of proportionality. Does the good to be gained by having hunting rifles exceed the evil to be s…

Not tough. The answer to that particular question is "yes". The number of lives saved using rifles far exceeds the number taken without just cause. And when it comes to defending my family, "proportionality" is irrelevant: statistics mean nothing when they happen to you. Careful how you apply your reasoning, lest every right you cherish be denied you in kind.

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#58

Post by anigbrowl » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 9:47 PM UTC

wildermuthn wrote: post #10

anigbrowl wrote: post #2

That you have a computer at all is in large part due to the overwhelming demand for accurate ballistics data and codebreaking during WW2. It's very easy to play '6 (military) degrees of separation' and conclude that virtually any human activity supports the killing of people. Like baking at home? Your bakery hobby slightly reduces the demand for manufactured bread, thus making it more affordable to a heartless milita…

Technology is not neutral. Technologies are designed for discrete purposes. A hammer is designed for, among other things, hammering nails, not eating. And as it has been said, "When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." A CIA drone is not a neutral technology. Kevin Kelly (a former editor of Wired) wrote a book called "What Technology Wants." He reminds us that technology does have a purpose,…

I don't agree with you or Kevin Kelly. A hammer might be designed for hammering nails, but you can beat someone to death with a hammer or use it to build a house. A drone that is used to kill people can easily be turned to other purposes; consider the fact that satellite photography was once used primarily for espionage and military target identification, but has since become an invaluable tool for everything from mapping services to environmental observation. We wouldn't have been able to properly observe things like deforestation in the Amazon, the ozone hole, or shifting temperature gradients without this military-originated technology.

Kelly has interesting points to make about path-dependency, but I don't share his teleological viewpoint, though having said that I've only read extracts and essays by him rather than the full book.

Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.

#59

Post by bane » Sun, Apr 07, 2013, 11:23 PM UTC

binarymax wrote: post #33

I wrote, but never published [1], a variation on the MIT license that has specific clauses stating that the software can only be used by parties who dont own/manufacture/trade firearms or ballistics. I never published it because I am not a lawyer, and it probably would have come across as an elaborate troll. If anyone is interested, I'll release it. [1] https://github.com/binarymax/Non-violent-License

You might be interested to note that the world's largest R&D firm [1] has a charter where they can't research offensive weaponry, but can research "dual-use" technology. e.g. if you can develop techniques to turn a cancer drug into an aerosol for oral delivery, you can use the same technique to turn a mildly infectious contagion into a bio-weapon.

1 - http://www.battelle.org/