Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year • Hacker News Board

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#81

Post by bduerst » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:03 PM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #20

BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not inevitable if we aren’t willing to let it happen. It used to be “inevitable” that poison gas, napalm, cluster mines, etc. were inevitably the future of war, but as a species we decided we weren’t okay with the effects of those technologies, and we’ve subsequently been reasonably successful at not using them.

Imagine if all engineers had boycotted weapons development due to the heinous nature of napalm firebombing in WW2. US military competency stagnates at the stage of napalm. Would that actually change the behavior of the government's military, or would they continue to use napalm in Vietnam and beyond? As history has borne out, I think the latter is the case. The gov will assume it is the best tool so far to do the job…

This is the arms manufacture argument. Sure, smarter, more efficient killing tools may seem like a benefit, but it's always framed in a "us vs. them" argument.

What happens when you're the "them" at the receiving end of these smart weapons? Weapons tech is a pandora's box, once opened, everyone has it and you can't close it.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#82

Post by tossaccount123 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #50

Apocryphon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. arms industry is huge, and so is defense spending. If the DoD wants better talent, then budget accordingly and pay high salaries and fix up their recruitment messages and surely some smart CS grads will go to them. Why should our military be dependent upon SV civilian companies that have workers who don’t want to work on military applications? Then just hire the ones who do, fund new military-oriented startu…

That's exactly the scenario we'll see over the next ~20 years, as parts of Silicon Valley refuse to go along with the Pentagon. The military industrial complex will put tens of billions of dollars into backing new start-ups that will cooperate over that time. Those companies will receive favoritism from the state over time, to Google's detriment. That will include technology transfer and regulatory favoritism (AI wil…

You do realize Larry and Sergey's initial funding to create a search engine came from DARPA, a military program, right?

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#83

Post by hopler » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #75

NotAnEconomist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the media has a lot to do with that. They run stories about how the military bombs some civilians while fighting jihadists, but not about how those same jihadists routinely round up and torture children, kill scores of locals, etc. Outside of Iraq, which fuck Bush, can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing? I think it's a really shallow view to say it's better to…

Part of it is also how we teach history. US schools have a tendency to only focus on the wars in which we are clearly the "good guys" until you get to the post-WWII wars in which things become much more clouded morally. This gives off the impression that the US and its military have sort of lost our way in the last half century or so. The truth is that all war is generally bad and only our perception of it has change…

Bad wars are a standard part of history education, from the Trail of Tears to Jim Crow to the Spanish-American war.

People are willfully ignorant.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#84

Post by hopler » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

tossaccount123 wrote: post #80

drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

Google is actively helping the Chinese military by opening their AI center in China. Every bit of the IP they develop in China will be in the hands of the government and thus weaponized by the Chinese military. Yet I haven't heard a peep of protest from the same people who criticized project Maven https://taskandpurpose.com/google-china-artificial-intellige... https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/13/alphabets-google-opens-ch…

That's a basic AI research center, and it's hiring people away from other projects they could be doing in China.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#85

Post by namirez » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

ryanmercer wrote: post #55

izacus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, there was certanly "a fit" inside Google around Dragonfly as well - and the only big corporation that actively assists China at this point is Apple. So I'm not quite sure what the OP meant?

I feel like Maven got saber rattling from employees at least one order of magnitude more than Dragonfly. At least I saw a LOT more press and general discussion.

Or perhaps Maven got more media coverage than Dragonfly. Selection bias can be a real thing.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#86

Post by darawk » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

abugheratwork wrote: post #67

darawk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who gets to make that determination? We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction. > Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest. This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multi…

You just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us, and then called someone childish.

> You just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us

No I didn't. Read what I said again.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#87

Post by darawk » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #61

darawk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who gets to make that determination? We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction. > Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest. This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multi…

So we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing.

> So we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing.

Might makes right to decide what is right. That is now and always will be the case.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#88

Post by darawk » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:16 PM UTC

the_duke wrote: post #73

darawk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who gets to make that determination? We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction. > Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest. This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multi…

> Reasons for war are complex. Yes they are. I only said that the motivation always was national self interest not benevolence. > We do. Because we can. I think that exhausted my tolerance for further discussion with you.

> Yes they are. I only said that the motivation always was national self interest not benevolence.

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Nobody has ever fought a war for 'benevolence'. It's a silly concept. If you know anything of history, you'd also know that WWII was not fought for 'benevolence'.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#89

Post by jka » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:17 PM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

Transparent de-escalation is the solution, not the age-old rhetoric of 'staying ahead in the arms-race'.

_Most_ people regardless of country of residence or origin want a peaceful and fulfilled, free life. You can never please everyone but arguing from basis of 'fear of the other' is a bit disingenuous and leads to these literal arms races.

That's not to say defense spending isn't important, but it has to be stressed with the word 'defense' and with an inherent bias towards security and safety. (I don't believe technology products are inherently neutral; as a result of design they are better or worse suited towards particular usages, and that needs focus too)

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#90

Post by mc32 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:18 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #75

NotAnEconomist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the media has a lot to do with that. They run stories about how the military bombs some civilians while fighting jihadists, but not about how those same jihadists routinely round up and torture children, kill scores of locals, etc. Outside of Iraq, which fuck Bush, can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing? I think it's a really shallow view to say it's better to…

Part of it is also how we teach history. US schools have a tendency to only focus on the wars in which we are clearly the "good guys" until you get to the post-WWII wars in which things become much more clouded morally. This gives off the impression that the US and its military have sort of lost our way in the last half century or so. The truth is that all war is generally bad and only our perception of it has change…

You’d be surprised then by how history is taught in other places. Even when people look at themselves introspectively, most people will see the good over the bad.

I don’t think were much worse than any other major actor in this regard. I have an incling we do a fair bit better than most at catigating ourselves.