Weirdly, I don't see any sources here even though the article suggests some of them wrote online. It seems none of them are named in this article. I'd really be curious if any names I recognize are on the list, but I doubt it.
I think you read that wrong. Quote from the article:
"Many of them have written accounts of their decisions to leave the company, and their stories have been gathered and shared in an internal document, the contents of which multiple sources have described to Gizmodo."
> several of whom discussed their decision to leave with Gizmodo, say that executives have become less transparent with their workforce about controversial business decisions
It's a significant amount of people if all of these people are close to or part of the project being discussed. I wouldn't expect Mike from the Angular team to resign over a project he knows little about so I don't think the employee count is relevant.
But that's not what the article says and it does that on purpose. The phrase "Google Employees resign in protest" is significant from a writers PoV. If they had sources and evidence to suggest it was close to the project, they would have said "Google's Project Maven Employees resign in protest" as it gives it more weight.
The art/lie is omission and letting the reader jump to the conclusion. Currently there is nothing in the article to suggest that these aren't just call-centre workers but they (Gizmodo, pronouns pal) will let you believe that its Maven people and senior engineers.
It puts the article in to random-arse speculation mode of a pretty bad kind.
I agree that the nature of their employment isn't being made clear and I'd argue that this was done to mislead, if the author had knowledge that people close to the project resigned they would have published it in the headline.
The reason they don't include the roles of the people who resigned is likely because those people are anonymous sources, and revealing their position risks revealing their identities.
>the company has defended its work on Maven and is thought to be one of the lead contenders for another major Pentagon cloud computing contract, the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, better known as JEDI, that is currently up for bids.
I'd say Google has closer ties to the military industrial complex than for example Huawei does to the PLA. I not only think that Google should be banned outside of the US, but that it must be.
Exactly. These companies are far from transparent, the best move is to not put all our eggs in one basket/country.
We too easily allow ourselves to leave it all up to Google and US companies with shady backgrounds and connections. It's why we must support the development of services like WeChat etc, so we are not fully reliant on the US. It also has the added benefit of allowing much greater focus on non-US people and languages, we're often forgotten about.
If the Middle East is a threat the easiest solution is switching to renewable energies. Many of the wars in the Middle East can only be fought because of money coming from oil. Any increase in renewable energy lessens that.
That is, to a certain degree, also true for Russia. Revenues for NAtural Gas and Oil are crucial for the state, they'd have to cut expenses significantly if oil prices were back at $30/bbl for more than just a few years.
Why do you think so? China is pretty much the only one that may be a threat. North Korea is a blip on the radar at worst. Russia is fading away and fast.
How can you say that? They have more active nuclear warheads than U. S., plenty to overwhelm any current AB system. Do you count on the AB system getting better so as to eliminate MAD?
They are a threat to U. S. in the sense they do not align themselves well to U. S. interests and have lots of nukes. But they are no Germany&Japan level threat; sure, their actions and demands need to be taken seriously, they cannot be labeled as 'terrorist', but at the same time, decades after 2nd world war, they did not begin any large scale military attack on the West, and there is no indication they desire/plan to do so.
It may have existed - but it wouldn't have mattered since the US government essentially controlled the production of critical industry and companies through the OWM, under threat of price controls, seizures, and establishing government corporations.
Not quite the iron-grip that less democratic nations had on their economies during war-time, but not what you would call a free-market economy nowadays.
You mean 'anti foreign war involvement' sentiment. It did exist, the U. S. power structures were divided on the question of involvement in the war in Europe.
The sentiment of the opposing ex-Googlers is about something different: arming post-Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria U.S. government with more weapons to do more of the same, when there is no comparable war going on.
If alphabet is the one with the machine learning contract with the government, at least they can run it conscientiously. Other companies and employees might not care about ethics as much; would these Google employees regret not having some control over this process?
Getting back to my original post, it doesn't matter if they believe it shouldn't be done at all. Machine learning will be utilized for defense/war/security, it's only a matter of when/by whom.
Would these Alphabet employees prefer the machine learning contracts to go to Lockheed Martin/Amazon where ethics are not a priority, or would they have rather kept the development in house?
There are limits to the idea of trying to get inside and change the organization from within. To take the idea to a ridiculous extreme, you wouldn't tell someone that they should join ISIS and change it from within because Islamic terrorism is going to happen with or without them.
I'd also question your bedrock assumption, that Google has much higher ethical standards than Raytheon. Why should we think this beyond "don't be evil" branding?
Your ridiculous extreme is non-nonsensical as it is a straw man to intimate any equivalency between ISIS and Alphabet's machine learning division. As well, the Department of Defense often has open bidding for contracts for defense technologies. If Alphabet is competing for a contract, you can almost certainly be guaranteed that another corporation is bidding for the same contract.
Individual employees have a say in how products are developed, it is not like employees must adhere to a rigid medieval orthodoxy or otherwise suffer death/decapitation/torture/rape.
Yes, I'm sure other companies are interested in the work. That does not mean engineers who think the work is morally repellent must lend their talents to it anyway.
In a hierarchical corporation, individual employees execute the will of their superiors. They can tweak the implementation of the product, but in this case they most probably have no power to prevent it from being implemented.
Very respectable decision in my book. Walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
You just can't abstract yourself away from ethical decisions ad infinitum. The level of self-deception needed to convince oneself that this, or whatever US military tech for that matter, would only be used for defensive purposes is mind-boggling to me.
Well... yes and no.. AI research is funded and has developed out of darpa contracts. If you rule out the abstraction then we’d have no research. But it’s fine if they say they don’t wa t to do this particular work.
I’m suggesting it’s turtles all the way down. The AI class you take in college is based on results from DARPA funded grants on say threat assessment or battlefield awareness or even automated defense technologies. It’s exactly the same except where you are on the R&D product timeline.
The thing is that you can't simply lump all military-related activities into one heap. There's a scale from passively only reacting in self-defense when acted upon, to actively seeking engagement on foreign ground.
This thing Google helps with, parsing and scanning through drone visual feeds, typically ends up on the latter end of the scale.
Sure, it could be used for parsing feeds from drones monitoring the US borders to Canada/Mexico, or cattle or whatever, but that's not the case here.
One could argue if a military will keep on using drones, is it “better” for them and us to better discern an enemy more accurately to minimize non enemy casualties, or continue with present incidental collateral death rates?
It’s not as simple as I’m against droning—that’s going to continue so long as the electorate demands minimized losses on our side (a very good argument, one leftists leveraged to try to get the US to disengage from previous wars), droning and it’s capabilities will continue.
Sure, the point is frustrating the govt’s attempt at better data means that they might have to revert to one of the options you posed which would be contrary to the goals sought by those objecting to google’s getting involved —undercutting their own argument.
The history of technology and the military in the US is more complex than the myopic "Military is Bad" style of arguments that have been vogue as of late. Preventing the US military from using that technology doesn't stop China or Russia from upgrading their systems to use it.
> "The history of technology and the military in the US is more complex than the myopic "Military is Bad" style of arguments that have been vogue as of late."
It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. People mostly know it is important to have a military. But that does not mean supporting all its current activities.
> "Preventing the US military from using that technology doesn't stop China or Russia from upgrading their systems to use it."
I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument.
The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. One can go as far as say that the faster the U.S. develops it, the faster the Russians and Chinese will have it.
The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc.
> It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest.
You may be right, but that's an issue with the white house administration and those telling the military what to do, not with the military itself. It has always seemed to me that if you never liked what the military was doing, it was a political disgreement, not an issue with the military itself.
> I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument.
> The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead.
It seems to me that wanting military superiority (or equality in some cases) is enough of a reason to pursue new weapon systems, and that will happen regardless of whether or not the US has the technology.
Einstein sent a letter to the US president in 1939, and then two more in 1940 to warn the US of upcoming technological advances and urged the US to start a nuclear weapons program. I mention this, because we developed nuclear weapons out of fear that someone else would do it, and we needed a deterrent. And that was obvious to people like Einstein.
> The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc.
That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty.
"That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty."
True, but this doesn't require AI drones. To me that is just well crafted propaganda to make people (voters) accept further military expenses. Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones (1). Today terrorism can be fought only with intelligence ops and cooperation between nations; we're talking about people either using AK47s and explosives just like 30 years ago, or driving vans to hit pedestrians. There's no war declaration in advance, therefore there's no identifiable enemy until the precise moment they hit. In this scenario you can't stop their action no matter the weapons at your disposal, not even alien technology, death rays, sharks with friggin lasers on their back or the Millennium Falcon itself. Enemies like those can be fought in one way: knowing them, foreseeing their moves and possibly infiltrating them, all actions involving intelligence, not weapons; with the right approach we don't need anything more advanced than what was available decades ago to fight them. But of course this reasoning doesn't help the weapon industry, so their puppets are instructed to brainwash people into thinking we need ultra advanced technologies when it's utter bullshit created to protect the weapons business.
(1) Actually the 9/11 attacks outcome could have been reduced by using AI drones, if they existed back then. Let's say the control tower operators realized a terrorist attack was in act on a number of planes and they knew the terrorists were going to crash some of them onto populated buildings (which is unlikely as it was unheard of before, but let's just pretend that). A swarm of AI equipped drones could have been instructed to patrol every plane literally following it so that in case of an attack each drone could down the plane to reduce the number of victims. All fine, and in this context it could work: tune the drone to the airplane transponder and let it share the plane flight plan, so that it can identify immediately if it deviates from route; if it does check with traffic control and the military and if they command so, hit the plane. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not sure I'd want these things flying over my head 24/7 or behind my plane, not even for good reasons.
You're right. They require bombs and bullets. Both have a far higher chance of collateral damage than using drones. But apparently everyone has deemed them more acceptable than possible alternatives, so we use them.
> Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones.
You've given me a false choice. Namely that only defending against terrorist attacks is the only legitimate purpose. Many others probably exist too.
Last time I checked urban warfare was a fairly dicey situation for military personnel. Anything that can navigate, map, and neutralize enemy hostiles in a building, means less death rates for our soldiers.
Exactly. It is a childish and potentially suicidal point of view when you take into consideration human history and the rise and fall of nations and entire peoples with respect to technology and military power, when allowed to move beyond virtue signalling, which is all this really is.
The more important thing to attempt to control is the application of the military as a defensive or offensive force. Sabotaging the military because you disagree with an aggressive/offensive or otherwise unjust application of force is really missing the point.
I respect the workers for walking away. If they are committed pacifists, then more power to them.
As for me, I'm a proud military veteran. I believe a strong US military helps make the world a better and safer place. So I'd keep that job and work it as best as I could.
Different strokes for different folks. Life's too short to hate people who think differently.
Yours is an interesting opinion - what makes you 'believe a strong US military helps make the world a better and safer place'? Did you think about the probabilities that this strong military will be misused to do the opposite?
I couldn’t help but think that if Palanteer employees ever decide to quit based on their company’s questionable decisions, there’d be no one left to work there.
There are plenty of people with either little or distorted morals willing to work for... Pretty much anyone for the right price. Which is why Google will have no problem finding replacements for these employees who have less pesky ethical standards.
Off-topic: 2008 ... everyone was using G product (in my env at least). Imagine saying back then "10 years from now Google will provide military with artificial intelligence".
This was an obvious outcome to me. I'm a Googler, previously worked for a national lab (non confidential, but the military was free to use our free software products), and I always expected that one of the end games of a US company with advanced ML would be selling it to the US government.
Eric Schmidt acted directly on the behalf of the US government and the State Department, and has been cultivating close ties with the DoD for years now.
I see comments about how Google should be protecting the country, thus failing some sort of patriotism test. I don't understand how people don't see that Google is a global company, and really should be providing lethal cloud services to all nations to harm all of its users instead of just some of them. Some of you are way too US centric in your viewpoints.
Google is a US company thus eligible to bid on US government contracts, if other countries were to open their defence logistics to outside bidders they should consider bidding for those.
I left a good job with an insurance company, not in protest really, but just because I hated the idea of being a part of an industry I despise so much. Unfortunately my departure didn't shake the foundation of their business, but I'm no longer embarrassed to talk about who I work for.
Why would you not want to take about that? Did the insurance company have a very bad reputation? Because I certainly would not be embarrassed to work for some insurance companies because they can be fair and quite reasonable (while others are not).
I once agreed. But three months ago I broke my leg in a skiing accident and my insurance (fuck you, Cigna) has refused to cover it because I didn't get "prior approval" for my emergency room visit. Thats right, I was supposed to call my fucking insurance company while lying in agony with a broken leg on top of a mountain waiting to be med-evac'd.
On top of that, they've refused to cover my physical therapy, sending me a letter saying that it is their belief that I have full mobility and will not need further therapy sessions covered... while I was on crutches, in a boot. Probably a week or two after I got out of a wheelchair. Fuck you Cigna.
Is it bad that I have this cognitive dissonance of being fine with hating specific insurance companies but not the concept of insurance more generally?
Insurance as a concept is great. “Pay a little every month so that you won’t have to pay a lot when something unexpected happens”. The problem is when they ignore that and expect you to pay a lot when the unexpected does happen, as they look for any loophole available through which to get out of their obligation.
> At least in the United States, it's a trope that insurance salespeople and civil litigation lawyers are scumbags. I think it's completely bullshit, we need these industries.
We can both need industries while calling out that salespeople in that industry can be unscrupulous.
Try asking an auto agent to justify why you need $100K/$300K
and collision coverage on a $5K car and listen to the endless emotional stories about people being ruined and kids killed because their auto coverage was depleted after an accident.
Him: "Think about how hard it would hurt to have to pay $30K out of pocket!!!"
Me: "Honestly that would suck, but the chances of it happening are pretty small, it wouldn't ruin me, and its not worth what you are trying to charge."
Him: "Well what about $300K! Don't you want to be fully protected?"
Me: "What about $1M?! I can name numbers too!"
OK, maybe not that last line, but, using fear to sell someone more coverage than they objectively need is a scumbag move.
It's the protection plans from Walmart, the coverages when you buy a car, the countless times big purchases become gigantic impulse buys because you're made to feel you can't afford not to roll the dice. It's not all insurance, but this concept of insurance pervades so much of the economic world. It just sickens me.
Well the insurance industry doesn't have the best record in some areas. eg screwing over long term customers relaying on inertia to massively hijack up cover costs.
Let alone the whole with profits funds sector of the industry.
Why is it embarrassing to work for an insurance? Most insurances exist for a reason and are vital for most people/businesses. It's often said that insurances can be boring to work for but never heard that the sector has a terrible reputation.
Most health insurance companies do but not all. And of Non-life insurance companies (property, car) there's generally not such a bad perception. But I'm not based in the US so can't say. At least in Europe, most people are not the biggest fan of insurances but they recognise the need for them.
Allstate and State Farm famously skipped insurance payouts for victims of Hurricane Katrina. More recently, victims of the Tubbs Fire in Santa Rosa, CA are locked in a legal battle with their property insurers. I agree with you that you _must_ have it, regardless of personal feelings or perception, but it's very far from perfect and probably very far from most measures of "good," too.
Maybe it's because I'm based in Europe. It doesn't appear to be the same to me here. Insurances obviously also try to prevent paying out but that's mostly in unclear cases or where there was some fault. All cases I know from friends & family were paid rather quickly..
> Most insurances exist for a reason and are vital for most people/businesses. It's often said that insurances can be boring to work for but never heard that the sector has a terrible reputation.
C'mon, you've never heard of any part of the insurance sector having a terrible reputation?
> According to a recent Harris Poll, health and life insurance companies are among the least-trusted companies in the US. Just 7% of the surveyed 2,250 adults told Harris they trusted their health insurance company, while 10% said the same of life insurance companies. ... The health and life insurance sectors narrowly beat out telemarketing and social media companies, with a 6% approval rating; oil companies with 4%; and tobacco companies with an abysmal 3%.
I don't disagree with you- insurance does perform an essential function in risk management. However, this doesn't mean that individual actors in this space have always performed in the "best" way. Not to mention the nature of insurance in general is adversarial against the customer- if you pay out on too many policies you're underwater.
>Not to mention the nature of insurance in general is adversarial against the customer- if you pay out on too many policies you're underwater.
Like any business, “dollars in” has to be greater than “dollars out” in the long term. This seems to be a controversial train of thought when it comes to insurance for some reason.
It's problematic when you have companies deny claims that shouldn't be denied, or otherwise trying to disincentivize using their services.
For example, from a pure dollar-in-dollar-out perspective it's in the best interest of my insurance provider for me to not visit my doctor, because it costs them money out of the payments I make them. If they create a small network of doctors who take their policy in my area, it makes it even harder for me to use their services- maybe the doctor is inordinately far from me, or constantly overbooked, or never in the office (what I'm dealing with right now). The harder you make it to access a service that your customers are paying for, the more money you make.
I really didn't want to delve into this on here, but I suppose I should have assumed that a lot of people out there work for insurance companies. So here it goes...
It was a relatively small dental insurance company that had a reputation for being "for the little guy". To be honest I hadn't thought about it much before working there. But then I sat through meetings where they were actively trying to come up with strategies to get more single guys to sign up, and to keep mothers from signing up. They weren't even coy about it. All development went into signing certain people up, almost nothing went into helping people actually use it.
I blame the hospitals and the insurance companies both for the pricing arms race. I guess my big conceptual concern is how our society no longer makes anything, but just finds new ways of extracting money from each other. And besides housing market crashers and the bad actors on Wall Street (who should be in jail), I can't think of another industry that is completely built around a vague concept of money.
This will probably anger a lot of people, but it's just how I feel. I don't think everyone who works there is going to hell, it's just not something I was proud to say I was a part of. I didn't feel like I was contributing to something that was making the world better.
Parent didn't say insurance is not necessary/useful. You can think something is a good idea and be disgusted by (large parts of) the industry around it.
Entirely fair enough, but their argument was polemic and was guttural in criticism. I have reasons enough to hate particular insurance companies, I assure you. But refusing to do work for them on the universal maxim that something is wrong with them all doesn't make sense
During the Queensland floods in Australia a suite of insurance companies didn't pay out thousands of their customers because they deemed the flood to have been an 'inland tsunami' and not to be confused with a 'flood'. Which no joke, was in the fine print as an exception.
This is a 'flood' that caused billions worth of damage that displaced millions out of homes and covered an area that would have covered the majority of Europe under metres of 'flood' waters.
It went to court and State and Federal Governments got involved to settle the case. Not sure what happened to it.
Nothing further to add here beside to point out. Insurance companies can be fucking awfully deceptive.
My guess is that this is mostly political in that if Hillary were in the WH, this would not have been news despite a likely increase in “droning”, given her expression around droning.
If they really had ethical concerns they’d have quit long ago given all the data collected from their users —I get it advertising is their bread and butter. We’ll see how GDPR affects their behavior at home and if it means anything.
My personal conspiracy theory is this is Google’s way to get its notorious horde of SJWs to resign en masse. I left years ago, and even back then the internal Google+ was a festering, aggressively intolerant SJW cesspool. There are dozens of people who seem to spend all day there posting the most ludicrous SJW bullshit and virtue signaling, and seemingly do nothing else (according to eg Critique, the internal code review tool). The management is unwilling/unable to do anything about the problem. From what I heard things have gotten much worse since I left.
To me this quote right here seem to sum it up perfectly:
The company’s recent political fumbles, like its sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference and its struggle to address internal diversity concerns, have also played a role.
The company does not want to be a left leaning liberal company. It wants to be a neutral company that doesn't get punished by the winds of our two party political system. I'm sure after Trump won in 2016 a lot of higher ups at Google let out a collective sigh of relief about their 2012 decision to support the CPAC.
Calling that support a 'political fumble' is all that you need to see how biased this article is.
Good on them. Weaponizing mass surveillance will the most evil any company has ever done.
Soon enough we are going to have drone flying done the street and stopping us to scan our face. No one will bat an eye as it's for "our protection" and nothing _more_.
On a more general note, where ones work violates ones values either because one feels ones work can enable unwarrented agression, transgressions against human liberties, or violaations of human rights. The most influential thing one can do is walk away. A core set of experineced, capable engineers is required for the success of many projects beyond standard levels of complexity. Engineers now, but more in the future, will influence aysmetrically the type of systems that get built, just by refusing to work on projects that can server intrests that they are at odds with.
As a second point, engineers somewhere, perhaps readers of hackernews, have built systems that enabled illegality and overreach -- and they maintain them. I understand that people want to provide for their families and futures, but at some level introspection, unfortuntely, seems to have fallen short. Taking the idea a step further, what expections should we have of our peers?
People really can help create the future through what they choose to work on.
126 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 446 ms ] threadI think you read that wrong. Quote from the article:
"Many of them have written accounts of their decisions to leave the company, and their stories have been gathered and shared in an internal document, the contents of which multiple sources have described to Gizmodo."
The 'maven' story was published in early march, it’s an 80k employee company, that is not even a blip within their natural turnover rate.
It's a significant amount of people if all of these people are close to or part of the project being discussed. I wouldn't expect Mike from the Angular team to resign over a project he knows little about so I don't think the employee count is relevant.
The art/lie is omission and letting the reader jump to the conclusion. Currently there is nothing in the article to suggest that these aren't just call-centre workers but they (Gizmodo, pronouns pal) will let you believe that its Maven people and senior engineers.
It puts the article in to random-arse speculation mode of a pretty bad kind.
I'd say Google has closer ties to the military industrial complex than for example Huawei does to the PLA. I not only think that Google should be banned outside of the US, but that it must be.
We too easily allow ourselves to leave it all up to Google and US companies with shady backgrounds and connections. It's why we must support the development of services like WeChat etc, so we are not fully reliant on the US. It also has the added benefit of allowing much greater focus on non-US people and languages, we're often forgotten about.
That is, to a certain degree, also true for Russia. Revenues for NAtural Gas and Oil are crucial for the state, they'd have to cut expenses significantly if oil prices were back at $30/bbl for more than just a few years.
How can you say that? They have more active nuclear warheads than U. S., plenty to overwhelm any current AB system. Do you count on the AB system getting better so as to eliminate MAD?
Russia and whatever jihadi wannabe idiots in HiLuxes in the middle east don't even rate. There are street gangs in the US that are more worrisome.
Not quite the iron-grip that less democratic nations had on their economies during war-time, but not what you would call a free-market economy nowadays.
The sentiment of the opposing ex-Googlers is about something different: arming post-Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria U.S. government with more weapons to do more of the same, when there is no comparable war going on.
Would these Alphabet employees prefer the machine learning contracts to go to Lockheed Martin/Amazon where ethics are not a priority, or would they have rather kept the development in house?
I'd also question your bedrock assumption, that Google has much higher ethical standards than Raytheon. Why should we think this beyond "don't be evil" branding?
Individual employees have a say in how products are developed, it is not like employees must adhere to a rigid medieval orthodoxy or otherwise suffer death/decapitation/torture/rape.
You just can't abstract yourself away from ethical decisions ad infinitum. The level of self-deception needed to convince oneself that this, or whatever US military tech for that matter, would only be used for defensive purposes is mind-boggling to me.
This thing Google helps with, parsing and scanning through drone visual feeds, typically ends up on the latter end of the scale.
Sure, it could be used for parsing feeds from drones monitoring the US borders to Canada/Mexico, or cattle or whatever, but that's not the case here.
It’s not as simple as I’m against droning—that’s going to continue so long as the electorate demands minimized losses on our side (a very good argument, one leftists leveraged to try to get the US to disengage from previous wars), droning and it’s capabilities will continue.
We have more than the two choices you present. We could add more people to the task instead of using machines.
We can redefine what "enemy" means such that anyone who dies in a target area is an "enemy" - poof! no incidental collateral deaths.
We can allow, say, the objections of the crew of the AC-130 to override possibly illegal orders which result in targeting hospitals.
There are a great many things we can do; enough to suggest that what you propose as the goal to consider likely isn't an important US goal.
It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. People mostly know it is important to have a military. But that does not mean supporting all its current activities.
> "Preventing the US military from using that technology doesn't stop China or Russia from upgrading their systems to use it."
I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument.
The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. One can go as far as say that the faster the U.S. develops it, the faster the Russians and Chinese will have it.
The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc.
You may be right, but that's an issue with the white house administration and those telling the military what to do, not with the military itself. It has always seemed to me that if you never liked what the military was doing, it was a political disgreement, not an issue with the military itself.
> I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument.
> The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead.
It seems to me that wanting military superiority (or equality in some cases) is enough of a reason to pursue new weapon systems, and that will happen regardless of whether or not the US has the technology.
Einstein sent a letter to the US president in 1939, and then two more in 1940 to warn the US of upcoming technological advances and urged the US to start a nuclear weapons program. I mention this, because we developed nuclear weapons out of fear that someone else would do it, and we needed a deterrent. And that was obvious to people like Einstein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_...
> The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc.
That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty.
True, but this doesn't require AI drones. To me that is just well crafted propaganda to make people (voters) accept further military expenses. Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones (1). Today terrorism can be fought only with intelligence ops and cooperation between nations; we're talking about people either using AK47s and explosives just like 30 years ago, or driving vans to hit pedestrians. There's no war declaration in advance, therefore there's no identifiable enemy until the precise moment they hit. In this scenario you can't stop their action no matter the weapons at your disposal, not even alien technology, death rays, sharks with friggin lasers on their back or the Millennium Falcon itself. Enemies like those can be fought in one way: knowing them, foreseeing their moves and possibly infiltrating them, all actions involving intelligence, not weapons; with the right approach we don't need anything more advanced than what was available decades ago to fight them. But of course this reasoning doesn't help the weapon industry, so their puppets are instructed to brainwash people into thinking we need ultra advanced technologies when it's utter bullshit created to protect the weapons business.
(1) Actually the 9/11 attacks outcome could have been reduced by using AI drones, if they existed back then. Let's say the control tower operators realized a terrorist attack was in act on a number of planes and they knew the terrorists were going to crash some of them onto populated buildings (which is unlikely as it was unheard of before, but let's just pretend that). A swarm of AI equipped drones could have been instructed to patrol every plane literally following it so that in case of an attack each drone could down the plane to reduce the number of victims. All fine, and in this context it could work: tune the drone to the airplane transponder and let it share the plane flight plan, so that it can identify immediately if it deviates from route; if it does check with traffic control and the military and if they command so, hit the plane. What could possibly go wrong? I'm not sure I'd want these things flying over my head 24/7 or behind my plane, not even for good reasons.
You're right. They require bombs and bullets. Both have a far higher chance of collateral damage than using drones. But apparently everyone has deemed them more acceptable than possible alternatives, so we use them.
> Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones.
You've given me a false choice. Namely that only defending against terrorist attacks is the only legitimate purpose. Many others probably exist too.
Last time I checked urban warfare was a fairly dicey situation for military personnel. Anything that can navigate, map, and neutralize enemy hostiles in a building, means less death rates for our soldiers.
The more important thing to attempt to control is the application of the military as a defensive or offensive force. Sabotaging the military because you disagree with an aggressive/offensive or otherwise unjust application of force is really missing the point.
As for me, I'm a proud military veteran. I believe a strong US military helps make the world a better and safer place. So I'd keep that job and work it as best as I could.
Different strokes for different folks. Life's too short to hate people who think differently.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-military-is-responsibl...
https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_next_silicon_va...
The artificial part is just the nature progression of such.
Published in 2013-2014 time frame: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
I think it's completely bullshit, we need these industries.
On top of that, they've refused to cover my physical therapy, sending me a letter saying that it is their belief that I have full mobility and will not need further therapy sessions covered... while I was on crutches, in a boot. Probably a week or two after I got out of a wheelchair. Fuck you Cigna.
Fuck Cigna.
Edit: typo. “My mother is...”
We can both need industries while calling out that salespeople in that industry can be unscrupulous.
Try asking an auto agent to justify why you need $100K/$300K and collision coverage on a $5K car and listen to the endless emotional stories about people being ruined and kids killed because their auto coverage was depleted after an accident.
Him: "Think about how hard it would hurt to have to pay $30K out of pocket!!!" Me: "Honestly that would suck, but the chances of it happening are pretty small, it wouldn't ruin me, and its not worth what you are trying to charge." Him: "Well what about $300K! Don't you want to be fully protected?" Me: "What about $1M?! I can name numbers too!"
OK, maybe not that last line, but, using fear to sell someone more coverage than they objectively need is a scumbag move.
Let alone the whole with profits funds sector of the industry.
C'mon, you've never heard of any part of the insurance sector having a terrible reputation?
> According to a recent Harris Poll, health and life insurance companies are among the least-trusted companies in the US. Just 7% of the surveyed 2,250 adults told Harris they trusted their health insurance company, while 10% said the same of life insurance companies. ... The health and life insurance sectors narrowly beat out telemarketing and social media companies, with a 6% approval rating; oil companies with 4%; and tobacco companies with an abysmal 3%.
https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/a...
Social media at 6% is interesting though, does that include tech companies like Facebook?
Like any business, “dollars in” has to be greater than “dollars out” in the long term. This seems to be a controversial train of thought when it comes to insurance for some reason.
For example, from a pure dollar-in-dollar-out perspective it's in the best interest of my insurance provider for me to not visit my doctor, because it costs them money out of the payments I make them. If they create a small network of doctors who take their policy in my area, it makes it even harder for me to use their services- maybe the doctor is inordinately far from me, or constantly overbooked, or never in the office (what I'm dealing with right now). The harder you make it to access a service that your customers are paying for, the more money you make.
Insurance fraud is a career for some.
I suppose if I worked in insurance I'd want to work for the gold standard that pays out and does a good job, while aggressively sniffing out fraud.
It was a relatively small dental insurance company that had a reputation for being "for the little guy". To be honest I hadn't thought about it much before working there. But then I sat through meetings where they were actively trying to come up with strategies to get more single guys to sign up, and to keep mothers from signing up. They weren't even coy about it. All development went into signing certain people up, almost nothing went into helping people actually use it.
I blame the hospitals and the insurance companies both for the pricing arms race. I guess my big conceptual concern is how our society no longer makes anything, but just finds new ways of extracting money from each other. And besides housing market crashers and the bad actors on Wall Street (who should be in jail), I can't think of another industry that is completely built around a vague concept of money.
This will probably anger a lot of people, but it's just how I feel. I don't think everyone who works there is going to hell, it's just not something I was proud to say I was a part of. I didn't feel like I was contributing to something that was making the world better.
This is a 'flood' that caused billions worth of damage that displaced millions out of homes and covered an area that would have covered the majority of Europe under metres of 'flood' waters.
It went to court and State and Federal Governments got involved to settle the case. Not sure what happened to it.
Nothing further to add here beside to point out. Insurance companies can be fucking awfully deceptive.
Disclaimer: I am a Xoogler
If they really had ethical concerns they’d have quit long ago given all the data collected from their users —I get it advertising is their bread and butter. We’ll see how GDPR affects their behavior at home and if it means anything.
Because everyone who doesn't share your ethics must have none?
I like and support the GDPR, but that's the most intolerant statement I've read in a while on HN.
The company’s recent political fumbles, like its sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference and its struggle to address internal diversity concerns, have also played a role.
The company does not want to be a left leaning liberal company. It wants to be a neutral company that doesn't get punished by the winds of our two party political system. I'm sure after Trump won in 2016 a lot of higher ups at Google let out a collective sigh of relief about their 2012 decision to support the CPAC.
Calling that support a 'political fumble' is all that you need to see how biased this article is.
No results found for "Don't be evil"
Did you mean: "Do be evil"
Soon enough we are going to have drone flying done the street and stopping us to scan our face. No one will bat an eye as it's for "our protection" and nothing _more_.
Make no mistake we are competing with China.
As a second point, engineers somewhere, perhaps readers of hackernews, have built systems that enabled illegality and overreach -- and they maintain them. I understand that people want to provide for their families and futures, but at some level introspection, unfortuntely, seems to have fallen short. Taking the idea a step further, what expections should we have of our peers?
People really can help create the future through what they choose to work on.