Where things stand with the Department of War • Hacker News Board

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#591

Post by BLKNSLVR » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 12:59 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #40

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…

> 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…

> Nobody has to take ethics during undergrad anymore I guess...

Especially not when certain people in positions of great power say things like "stupid rules of engagement" when referring to acts of war.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#592

Post by furyofantares » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 12:59 PM UTC

danielsamuels wrote: post #563

vldszn wrote: post #559

Under Secretary of War Emil Michael: I want to end all speculation: there is no active DeptofWar negotiation with AnthropicAI https://x.com/uswremichael/status/2029754965778907493?s=46&t...

It's worth reading his recent comments on this whole affair: https://www.a16z.news/p/emil-michaels-holy-cow-moment-with

Is it actually worth reading propaganda, though?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#593

Post by furyofantares » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 1:01 PM UTC

abustamam wrote: post #414

fluidcruft wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that's irrelevant for what "newspeak" means.

Maybe, but the comment I was replying to wasn't talking about newspeak.

It's in a reply chain that's talking about newspeak. You compacted your context way too early.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#594

Post by BLKNSLVR » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 1:01 PM UTC

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…

Add The Thirteenth Floor and eXistenZ to the initial list of movies.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#595

Post by fluidcruft » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 1:02 PM UTC

abustamam wrote: post #414

fluidcruft wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that's irrelevant for what "newspeak" means.

Maybe, but the comment I was replying to wasn't talking about newspeak.

Oh apologies, I interpreted your comment as intended to be part of the discussion rather than as a non-sequitur.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#596

Post by myrmidon » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 1:07 PM UTC

alex43578 wrote: post #511

etchalon wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Do you think a continuation of the firebombing campaign and an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in fewer deaths of civilians (particularly of the 'volunteer fighting corps')? That's to say nothing of the deaths in a potential US/USSR conflict that goes hot without the Damocles Sword of MAD...

This is a false dichotomy. In the words of the post-war US strategic bombing survey:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

While this is all speculation, that was at the very least a defensible point of view held by a bunch of Americans shortly after the war.

Regarding firebombing: Hiroshima alone killed probably more civilians than the entire Tokyo firebombing campaign. A firestorm is a terrible thing, but you can still run from a fire even if your whole city burns down; you can't run from a nuke.

So if you measure collateral damage primarily in civilian deaths, firebombing still looks much better (a hypothetical firebombing campaign would have probably killed Edit: I don't think dropping the nuclear bombs was especially ethically questionable compared to the rest of the war, but I feel it is very important to not whitewash that event as valiant effort to save young American conscripts. Regarding it as a slightly selfish weapon demonstration feels much more accurate to me.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#597

Post by refurb » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 1:10 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #529

refurb wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.)

You're not suggesting that, but then put up your own requirements for someone's ethics to be "valid". So in the end you are filtering others ethical choices by your own requirements.

And your logic seems to work backwards: someone does something you disagree with based on your personal ethical view -> assume they aren't well thought out

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#598

Post by rhubarbtree » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 1:12 PM UTC

Rohunyyy wrote: post #203

agigao wrote: post #140

Around 10 years ago, in college, in Calculus class I had a very ambitious classmate, wanted to go to DARPA and work on Robotics. I asked if he was thinking it through solely from technical perspective or considering ethics side as well. Clearly, he didn't understand the question and I directly inquired - what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? His response - that's not my…

See in your case with the military you can directly say, hey my code will be used to bomb other people possibly. But in today's times it isn't (I am sure even then) so cut and dry. I worked in AdTech industry (like 60% of the bay area techies). So the ad tech I write gets shown to millions/billions. What about ads influencing elections and then politicians waging wars? Anti-vax ads which influence people and then kil…

The option is to quit your job and go get a different one. It amazes me that people choose to work at Meta etc. I mean, it’s good for them, but they are choosing a bit more money whilst harming the rest of society. That’s a really bold move, to say that you just don’t care about other people.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#599

Post by rhubarbtree » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC

hereme888 wrote: post #578

lkey wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh? Name them, with receipts for actions taken , not vague gestures towards morality. The actual logical end point of most of the 'for the good of humanity' folks in the bay area is: 'Only I can be trusted with the money, power, and weapons that I believe will break the world, but I promise it is for the best. No system or power should hold me to account in the event I am wrong or change my mind. Trust me.'

I know many of them personally, and I will not name any of them, so that virtue-signaling radical leftists on the internet cannot harass them.

Absolute burn. But accurate.

I cannot stand this kind of absolute thinking from the left or right. It’s usually just cope for personal deficiencies.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#600

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 1:17 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #293

agigao wrote: post #140

Around 10 years ago, in college, in Calculus class I had a very ambitious classmate, wanted to go to DARPA and work on Robotics. I asked if he was thinking it through solely from technical perspective or considering ethics side as well. Clearly, he didn't understand the question and I directly inquired - what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? His response - that's not my…

Which is why on a human level I have zero respect for many CEOs. The world would be a better place without them and they are actively working on making it worse. In fact I believe the rest of the tribe should punish them for this anti-social behavior to disincentivize it in the future.

[deleted]