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

771–780 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#771

Post by gosub100 »

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…

What if a new weapons technology was developed by an adversary but not developed by your country. Then it was used to attack and perhaps conquer your country? Or cause an unduly higher number of casualties due to disparity of force?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#772

Post by gosub100 »

davedx wrote: post #677
xdennis wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. If the US wasn't so good at producing killing machines in WW2, you wouldn't be here to complain about DARPA ethics. Instead of having engineers develop the most advanced machines for killing (i.e. protecting the West) such people go into pr…

> This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. He specifically said autonomous killing machines. You understand the difference right?

Reread the original quote:

"what if the code you write OR autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing"

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#773

Post by nostromo »

digitalPhonix wrote: post #475
nostromo wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Warfighter is not a new term and has been used in the military since at least the 1990s and was used by Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump. Service members are anyone serving in the military. Warfighter is used to describe combat roles. If useful to distinguish between the two, warfighter is the correct term.

I was unaware that the secretary of defence was a combat role? He (and his allies) have referred to him as "warfighter": https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/23/look-ma-im-a-warfighter...

In that context he is clearly referring to his previous combat roles on the ground in Iraq.

It would be like a barista becoming CEO of Starbucks and saying, "the employees are happy to have a barista as CEO."

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#774

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

komali2 wrote: post #584
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Taiwanese government still officially considers itself the government of all of China, not just of Taiwan and a few outlying islands.

This is false. You will finally google this claim you've been repeating without evidence, and realize there's no supporting evidence for this claim. I guarantee it, because there is no evidence for this claim .

The Republic of China has not amended its constitution to eliminate its claim to all of China. You may be referring to the views of the current ruling party on what Taiwan should be, but constitutionally, it still claims everything.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#775

Post by actionfromafar »

bdangubic wrote: post #704
actionfromafar wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a next time? I wouldn't bet on it.

every year we hear the same thing but wheels keep on turning. we will vote again, we will make more mistakes in 2026/28/30... this "there will be no election" comments are quite silly in my opinion, America gets stupid from time to time but we get the fuckers out and try something else (which inevitably leads to some progress followed by more failure followed by...). Just remember it always comes down to - "it is the…

I hope you are right, and that ICE isn't outside polling stations come November, pulling you away (just to "check your ID" for a couple of days, you know!) if you are a registered Democrat or look too brown or gay.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#776

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

komali2 wrote: post #586
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a distinction between countries and governments. Both sides officially consider themselves to be China, the country, but under different, competing governments. They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all. The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave…

> Both sides officially consider themselves to be China There is no "China, the country." "China" just means, essentially, "Empire." It's like a country claiming to be Europe, or maybe better, The Roman Empire. Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true. > They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all. Only one…

"China" is analogous to "France," not "Europe."

There was a civil war inside China, with the rulers of both competing sides claiming the entire country as their own for decades after the shooting ended. Inside Taiwanese politics, there has been a shift relatively recently (in the last 20 years), but it would be a major shift if that were actually implemented as official policy.

> Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.

We live in a post-WWII world of national sovereignty and inviolable borders (or at least we did until very recently). That's what China rests on for its claims, legally speaking.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#777

Post by fluidcruft »

abustamam wrote: post #749
fluidcruft wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused... now you were talking about newspeak? How odd.

I'm not sure how you got that from my comment.

As a recap, my reply to your reply was that DoD is the actual newspeak, and your reply to that evolution of the discussion is that you were not discussing newspeak.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#778

Post by LunaSea »

lukan wrote: post #769
LunaSea wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that you can find something morally wrong with most companies or practices within these companies.

Oh if you are looking for dirt, you can find dirt allmost anywhere, but im gemeral I do see a difference in making a website for a kindergarten, vs applying the most efficient tech to track and target children with manipulative ads.

Sure, but maybe you'll have to ad dark patterns, track users or create ad campaigns yourself for this kindergarten website.

Maybe that kindergarten want to cut food and people costs to make more money. Which could lead to very real consequences for the kids as well.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#779

Post by egorfine »

reducesuffering wrote: post #765
egorfine wrote: post #487

One of the not-so-subtle ways we know a person is a supporter of russia's war in Ukraine is when they refer to it as "Special Military Operation". That begs the following question: why does Dario Amodei repeatedly call the Department of Defense "Department of War"?

Aren't people generally on board with preferred names? That's what the DoD wants to call themselves.

They don't get to choose.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#780

Post by herbcso »

Can we stop buying into the stupid "Department of War" naming!? An act of Congress is needed to rename it, so unless that happens (unlikely, given the current leaning toward gebral inaction on the part of Congress), it's still the Department of Defense and we shouldn't buy into this administration's warmongering PR.
Post reply on HN