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

641–650 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#641

Post by Tarq0n »

jadar wrote: post #299
fadesibert wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are waiting until undergraduate level to take ethics, it's far too late to matter anyways. Doubly so for "business ethics" classes which became à la mode in the post-Enron era. They attempt to teach fundamental ethics, when at most it should be a very thin layer on top of a well founded internal moral framework and well-accepted ethical standards inculcated from day 1 of kindergarten. Morals are taught 0-9 [0]…

[flagged]

Transcendental moral principles can still be secular.

One that I find compelling is that Rawls' veil of ignorance lets us imagine that we might be on either side of a conflict, and that therefore moral actions are equitable to both sides. This gives us a secular morality that doesn't come with the baggage of religious outgroup dynamics.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#642

Post by dotancohen »

Planktonne wrote: post #565
dotancohen wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.

If it's moral to strike at a country with nuclear capability that talks constantly about your country's destruction, then it's no less acceptable for Iran to strike the US than the other way around. You can't condemn one and condone the other on that basis.

You are 100% correct. That is exactly my point.

Iran has both reason and were developing capability to destroy a significant part of American national security. America absolutely must prevent that at any cost.

You could argue about how the rhetoric between the states got so bad that they each threatened each other's destruction. But the fact is that they got there.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#643

Post by Tarq0n »

tovej wrote: post #426
jadar wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have to strongly disagree. I've met people who have never been in touch with organized religion. They generally have excellent ethical frameworks. I've also read the bible, it does not have a consistent moral or ethical framework. How can it be that areligious people have ethics if they need god for ethics? Ethics is all about being human, it does not require a god, and it does not require anyone to understand even…

At this point theists often try to smuggle God back in as the source of morality through culture.

But I agree, empirically religion and moral behavior seem at best uncorrelated.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#644

Post by dotancohen »

queenkjuul wrote: post #405
dotancohen wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran has a strong nuclear weapon development program. Negotiations could not halt it - they stall negotiations and continue development. So if they continue development during negotiations, why shouldn't the US continue her own parallel military route? As for delivery, Iran does have missiles capable of launching a nuclear weapon at American assets in the Middle East, or American allies. Or even to just float it over…

Negotiations did halt it. Then Trump went back on the deal. There's reports Iran agreed to limit themselves to only medical grade centrifuges as recently as last week. And no, Iran does not have weapons capability to reach the US, period. They fundamentally did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. A threat to American strategic goals is not an imminent threat to the American people.

Negotiations halted Iran's nuclear program for, as per words of the treaty, "10 to 15 years". That was in 2016. If that treaty were not torn up, then Iran would be allowed to unveil their nuclear weapon in January 16, 2026. Yes, two months ago.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#645

Post by [deleted] »

dotancohen wrote: post #349
the_af wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the recently attacked countries posed an imminent threat to the US. In what kind of deranged world are we living that people are fighting against the notion that waging war on another country should be a costly decision !? My, the Overton window has indeed shifted far.

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#646

Post by Synaesthesia »

tedd4u wrote: post #102
6thbit wrote: post #22

> Our most important priority right now is making sure that our warfighters and national security experts are not deprived of important tools in the middle of major combat operations. > we had been having productive conversations with the Department of War over the last several days, both about ways we could serve the Department that adhere to our two narrow exceptions, and ways for us to ensure a smooth transition i…

What’s a “warfighter?” Do they come from the “Gulf of America?” We used to call them servicemen or service members. Emphasizing they served the people. I guess that’s too effeminate for our roided up and ironically hyper-insecure Secretary of Defense.

I hate this glorification of war.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#647

Post by throwpoaster »

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…

What we now call Silicon Valley was created by the Navy in the late 19th century because they needed advanced radio technology to coordinate Pacific patrols. From then to about five years before the time you’re talking about, schools and tech companies worked closely with the military.

On the timescale of the industry as a whole, working with the military has been the norm and we are seeing a reversion to mean after about two decades of aberrant divergence.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#649

Post by curt15 »

dotancohen wrote: post #347
komali2 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about Americans. What genuine threat did Venezuela or Iran pose to Americans ? Corporate interests don't count.

Do you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.

North Korea engages in no less saber-rattling. Why is the US not attacking Kim Jong Un?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#650

Post by GJim »

bradleyjg wrote: post #118
asveikau wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No war since has been even close to as unpopular or frankly as salient. Iraq. Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too. Also keep in mind when making comparisons that the Vietnam war was not unpopular with Americans at the beginning, and many people justified it all throughout, using language that will be similar to observers of later wars.

> Iraq Not in same ballpark. There’s no Iraq generation the way there’s a Vietnam one. > Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too. No they won’t. The lack of a draft and mass domestic casualties dramatically changes the picture. Especially on the saliency axis.

> No they won’t. The lack of a draft and mass domestic casualties dramatically changes the picture

American centrism strikes again.

Plenty of us of the same generation living in countries that didn't fight in Vietnam (with no such draft or casualties) share such ethical views.

Don't make this an American argument.

Post reply on HN