Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially

So, Siemens also built the deep packet inspection system for Iran (in a joint venture together with Nokia) and was accused of complicity in human rights violations (by Amnesty International, among other organisations).

After being called out, both companies posted an apology/explanation on their websites, where they claimed they didn't know that building a deep packet inspection system for Iran would result in human rights violations.

After having been developed for Iran, the system was also sold to Egypt. This is one reason why the Black Mirror-esque tracking/surveillance situation in China should scare everyone: This system now exists. Consider the inefficiency of government IT projects when they need to be built, compared to when they can be bought. I don't know if China would sell it, of course, but the mere existence and that it can now be deployed elsewhere, which is of course still no small task because a lot of it is probably very specific to China, but even then, scary as hell.

But I digress. So you say they helped their military with pride during WWII (what side was Siemens on, btw?)

Is there really nothing wrong with Siemens developing DPI infrastructure for a country that is known for its human rights abuses? (Siemens claiming not knowing what it would be used for is either a bullshit excuse or a dangerous lack of foresight).

So is there also really nothing wrong with Google developing AI for flying military robot plane-missile-things for this other country that is also known for human rights abuses? (just not on its own citizens, usually)

Anyway, my point is, it doesn't matter whether a corporation supports its own military/country when developing technology that comes strong ethical questions (which is the case for military drones, or DPI).

Google should consider their own choice in the light of whether this technology will be used for good things, not just whether the military of the particular country they're developing it for considers it a good thing, because usually the military considers whatever grants them more power to be good things.

Google should also consider that there is no "when a war breaks loose", that's not how the world works today. Besides, the USA claims to be currently "at war" anyway.

So when they develop modern weapons for the US military, they should consider that in the light of what the US military is doing right now and what it has been doing recently, not in the light of them taking the noble high ground in a hypothetical future war situation that conveniently has a clear "good side" and a clear "bad side".

Because before that hypothetical future war will happen those weapons WILL have been used for whatever the US military pleases currently. And that's not always good things.

Have you ever seen an engineer waste hours and days on a premature optimization? I have.

Have you seen the same thing sometimes turn later into remarkable prescience, correctly anticipating some future problem and solving it before it happens? I've seen that too.

Government and policy are rarely about certainty. They're generally and risks and probabilities, anticipated costs and expected values. That's the domain of statement and spies, and not for people who like clear certainties.

> the pandemics can't be blamed on the empires. Those were inevitable as population and trade grew, a byproduct of urbanization.

Fair point. I guess my thought was that empires increase the risk of pandemics, since they tend to come alongside expanded travel and trade. Periods of peaceful empire see population and trade increase faster than technological growth would predict, and disease becomes a frequent limit on their durations. But it's certainly not an intended consequence, and the risk would be rising with urbanization and technological growth regardless.

It's something that worries me about global connectivity, and I think it's a widely underestimated risk. But it's hardly a risk I could hold against Pax Americana; in an era of consumer plane travel nothing short of utter isolationism would constrain the risk. At least in a relatively peaceful world we have proactive monitoring and countries that can work together on treatment and vaccines.