Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

Post by jemfinch » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:05 PM UTC

manofstick wrote: post #524

dilippkumar wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? The US was built upon the idea that rights are inherent and not granted to citizens by a government. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Which was exactly what the parent had said. i.e. > This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements. Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because the say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean that they are) Mind blown huh?

Post by maroonblazer » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:18 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #869

maroonblazer wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who can project force like the U.S. military? No one. For the most part it's used to enable people to have more say in how they're governed, modulo certain constraints. That's not to say we do it perfectly but we shouldn't underestimate how positively influential that military power is.

In USSR, before it collapsed, young people dreamt of having jeans (not everybody could get or afford them), listened to Western music and watched Western movies. Not because US army has secretly occupied USSR, but because Western culture was more attractive to them. Not everything is done with the military.

Post by Demiurge » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:25 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #826

Demiurge wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The engineers in both cases are not essential to the outcomes. Engineers or craftsmen, or any other workers execute tasks put forth to them by society that gave them birth and education. Any person in the society has some influence, but clearly more influence is the hands of the leaders and organizers. But, there is power in organizing, or unionizing, for collective bargaining.

That defense didn’t work at Nuremberg.

Post by barrkel » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:36 PM UTC

archerface wrote: post #539

grellas wrote: post #533

Where does one draw a line these days among the personal, the moral, the legal, and the political? The military application in question is legal and is approved by a duly elected government that supports it politically. In earlier days, employees generally would see this as just doing their jobs in developing technology that their employers wanted developed and would not concern themselves about ultimate uses and app…

Thank god, some sense! It was driving me crazy with how many irrational positions that people in this thread are holding without considering their orientation to the product (AI) and their relationship to the employer. Something I would add is that a lot of people don't understand how fundamental military R&D is to the collective progression of knowledge and technology. Take almost any common technology that we use t…

Post by astura » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:38 PM UTC

dkhenry wrote: post #576

tlb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large fraction of the world's best engineers don't want to be associated with military projects. So companies have a choice to hire them and not do military projects, or not hire them and do them. When I was running a robot company, I made the decision to not do military projects (mostly for personal reasons) and it helped me hire some great people that I couldn't have otherwise.

[citation needed] on why you think there is a large fraction of the worlds best engineers that don't want to be associated with military projects. It has been my experience that the best engineers want to work on hard problems and solve the worlds pressing needs, that sometimes puts them right in the middle of military projects. For instance almost every modern technological breakthrough has been accomplished by or f…