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

521–530 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#521

Post by kakonako »

mempko wrote: post #21

Long time ago I worked for a company that I learned was selling it's software to help target people during the Iraq war. I quit because I cannot support building software that kills people. This is a message to people working for that line of business at Anthropic. You don't have to do it, you can quit. If you are helping this insane administration to conduct war on Iran quit. You don't need to have that kind of bloo…

I too quit a job that made a significant pivot to weapons R&D. It was a hard move, and honestly I still haven't recovered from it. I don't regret the decision in the slightest though.

One aspect that sticks with me was the sheer excitement of a lot of people in the room, engineers excited to be working on new problems. I believe many didn't consider the consequences of their labor.

As a worker it can take time for it to sink in that the products you are actively working on are being used for immoral/unethical purposes. I've also noticed a perceived weakness when expressing these types of views to colleagues, responses either masked by apathy or just direct justified destruction of lives along patriotic or ideological lines.

Its worth bringing up these stories whenever appropriate I believe, people sometimes _need_ a jolt even if the probability of success are low.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#523

Post by benterix »

lukan wrote: post #390
bobbiechen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I’m going to tell you about how I took a job building software to kill people. >But don’t get distracted by that; I didn’t know at the time. Caleb Hearth: "Don't Get Distracted" https://calebhearth.com/dont-get-distracted

But he did know he was going to work for the military. "I’d be joining a contracting company for the Department of Defense." (But interesting article otherwise)

Yeah but this itself doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, e.g. DARPA sponsored half of the nice things we're using every day.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#524

Post by refurb »

keiferski wrote: post #367
ryandrake wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. (spoiler alert) Wasn't this one of the plot points of the Val Kilmer movie Real Genius ? They had to trick the students into creating a weapon by siloing them off from each other and having them build individual but related components? How far…

Many prominent tech and science leaders have been disparaging philosophy for decades now. Not surprising that in the absence of any serious ethical thought, “make money = good” is the default position.

Your opinion seems to suggest that unless someone has the same moral view as you they must not have any morals at all?

What if their morals are “I am not responsible for how my products are used?”

You may not agree, but it’s a valid ethical stance to hold.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#525

Post by benterix »

dhosek wrote: post #458
pjmlp wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Gen-Xer I fully agree, I don't get the way things are with obedience, the rediculous situation that American families can lose their kids by having them playing alone in the garden, how everyone sells out for money (Punk would not happen today), the always smile and say no negatives at work being rediculous false (this one really drives me crazy),....

And yet Gen X is the demographic that fell hardest for Trump.

This is not true:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#526

Post by rkomorn »

benterix wrote: post #525
dhosek wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet Gen X is the demographic that fell hardest for Trump.

This is not true: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

I'm confused. The poll shows ages 45-64 had the highest percentage of Trump voters (54%).

Is that not confirming that Gen X (1965-1980, so ages 44-59 in 2024) was the most pro-Trump?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#527

Post by nicoburns »

WalterBright wrote: post #477
keiferski wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many prominent tech and science leaders have been disparaging philosophy for decades now. Not surprising that in the absence of any serious ethical thought, “make money = good” is the default position.

[flagged]

Would you consider being a contract killer (i.e. a hitman) ethical? What about being a creator of CSAM? Because those are both examples making money by providing others with what they want. And if we followed free market principles to their logical extreme then both of those would be allowed.

I think most people would agree that this would not be even remotely ethical. Nor would it lead to higher living standards than a more restricted market economy.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#528

Post by vintermann »

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…

I was absolutely disgusted by stuff like 24 and zero dark thirty when it came out. "If you cut the throat of the terrorist's son he'll break down and tell you where the bomb is" - they expected the audience to treat that as plausible narrative, and a lot of them clearly did.

A lot of the war propaganda from back then is also depressingly similar to what gets pumped out now: you can't argue with success, you don't want to be on the losers' side do you?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#529

Post by keiferski »

refurb wrote: post #524
keiferski wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many prominent tech and science leaders have been disparaging philosophy for decades now. Not surprising that in the absence of any serious ethical thought, “make money = good” is the default position.

Your opinion seems to suggest that unless someone has the same moral view as you they must not have any morals at all? What if their morals are “I am not responsible for how my products are used?” You may not agree, but it’s a valid ethical stance to hold.

No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level.

I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.)

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I think there are definitely many positions with which I disagree, but are nonetheless well-thought through and coherent.

But it seems pretty clear that the people making these decisions haven’t done the work of thinking it through, and are instead just trying to maximize money. That’s my claim, at least.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#530

Post by gbin »

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…

Didn't the silicon valley basically bootstrapped with defense contracts?
Post reply on HN