| ▲ | cooper_ganglia 2 days ago |
| Just because you are working with your government does not mean what you’re doing is necessarily immoral, either. |
|
| ▲ | _alternator_ 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Correct. It depends. For example, it might depend on what the collaboration is likely to result in. Perhaps it would be more likely to be moral there were some boundaries in place, like "no mass domestic surveillance" or "no fully autonomous weapons". Because the US government currently believes it is legal to blow up civilian drug traffickers and wage war without congressional approval. So at some point, yes, collaboration is immoral. |
| |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The US military has deployed fully autonomous weapons since at least 1979, and potential adversaries are now doing the same. For better or worse that ship has sailed. | | |
| ▲ | _alternator_ 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Look, a dumb bomb is a fully autonomous weapon once it's launched. Let's be real: an LLM making decisions on who to target and when and where to launch munitions represents a meaningful change in our concept of autonomous weapons. | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So we are wrong to express any opposition or desire to maybe raise the bar here? Aren’t we supposed to be “the good guys”? Or should we just accept a role as the menace of the world, wildly throwing its weight around whenever we have an unscrupulous president? | | |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Those questions are moot. There are situations where it's simply impossible to have a human in the loop because reaction time is too slow or the environment is too dangerous or communication links are unreliable. Russia is deploying fully autonomous weapons to attack Ukraine today and they will be selling those weapons (or licensing the technology) to their allies. There is no option to stop. And let's please not have any nonsense suggestions that we can somehow convince Russia / China / Iran / North Korea to sign a binding, enforceable treaty banning such weapons: that's never going to happen. | | |
| ▲ | t-3 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's always an option to stop. We can choose civility over barbarity, stop trying to kill people over 1000+ year old dick waving contests, and stop threatening each other with doomsday weapons because your grandpa shot my grandpa. Just because our leaders are too stupid and cowardly doesn't mean there's no option. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Sounds good! Please convince Vladimir Putin to choose civility over barbarity, then get back to us so we can discuss options. | | |
| ▲ | convolvatron 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I wasn't aware that the US was throwing away its moral compass for the just cause of frustrating Putin's expansionism. The new story seems to be Putin gets to do what he wants, and so do we. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If you think there's something wrong with giving our warfighters the most effective weapons to carry out their assigned missions with minimum casualties then your moral compass is completely broken. Personally I favor a less interventionist foreign policy but that has to be addressed through the political process. Not by unaccountable individual defense contractor employees making arbitrary policy decisions. | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > warfighters You should know that every single veteran I know ruthlessly mocks Hegseth for trying to use this term non-comedically. It’s a synonym for someone who takes their service way too seriously/makes it their whole identity. It’s almost exclusively used to mock people. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sillyfluke 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not sure you're aware, but the joke may be on you. It's apparently Putin who's convinced Trump and the Mullahs (not the band) to choose civility over babarity by allowing a superyacht of one of his cronies to pass through the Hormuz.[0] Russian trolling at its finest, truly. This timeline keeps raising the bar on the absurdity quotient. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2pn8zdxdjo | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | We aren’t Russian and Putin is not our leader. We can choose how we behave and operate. This is like saying we should use chemical weapons if someone else deploys one. You’re speaking as if it’s all so binary. “Do what they do or you lose.” | | |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's cheap and easy for someone sitting safely behind a computer to pretend to be morally superior when you're not the one who has to make hard decisions, or deal with the consequences. Chemical weapons have seen minimal use after WWI largely because they're not very militarily effective. Autonomous kinetic weapons actually work. Right now Ukrainians are building autonomous weapons to defend themselves against Russian autonomous weapons. For Ukrainians it is binary: do what they do or you lose. Would you prefer that they lose? And don't presume to tell us that the Russians can be persuaded to stop by non-violent means, that would be completely delusional. | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >It's cheap and easy for someone sitting safely behind a computer to pretend to be morally superior when you're not the one who has to make hard decisions, or deal with the consequences. This is a deeply flawed argument that has an obvious application back at you, but either way if you’re going to stoop to personal attacks I think we’re done here. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vintermann a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Right, so it was a comically bad defense. Like the guy in an old clip saying "What is my crime? Enjoying a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?" while being arrested for trying to pay with a stolen credit card. The succulence of the meal has nothing to do with it, and that it's your own government has nothing to do with it. It's just a sad way to try to distract from what's actually wrong with helping build tools for mass surveillance and autonomous murder. |
|
| ▲ | t-3 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In a logical or mathematical sense, sure, but when it's the US government and a huge surveillance-tech company it's pretty necessarily immoral (at least in an American context where harming liberty is immoral - other cultures disagree). |
|
| ▲ | Jtarii 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hegseth bombed a girls school in Iran last month. I think it's fair to doubt the moral worth of anyone assisting this admin. |
| |
| ▲ | somenameforme 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think that was intentional, but invading countries while trying to distract them with negotiations, randomly assassinating leaders and hoping everything just turns out well, threatening to "destroy civilizations", targeting bridges and more, all while aiding and abetting Israel which is intentionally destroying pharmaceutical, educational, and other such civilian institutions is all 100% intentional. In some ways worse than bombing the school was the effort to implicitly deny it. The school was near a military facility, and itself was a military facility in the past. US intelligence screwed up. They should have simply acknowledged what happened and why. Their response just reeked of cowardice and malice at the highest level. | |
| ▲ | xp84 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | conartist6 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | conartist6 2 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | cooper_ganglia 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You should probably give this a second look: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | |
| ▲ | conartist6 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If speaking vigorously in defense of morality is wrong, I guess that's something I'll just have to live with. | | |
| ▲ | ThrowawayR2 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You'll have to live with it somewhere else. Neither HN's administrators nor readership will tolerate that kind of behavior. If you intend to participate on Hacker News over the long term, please take up the suggestion by the other poster to review the guidelines and adhere to them. | | |
| ▲ | conartist6 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I thought what I said was borderline, but we seem to believe in free speech in this country and here in this place. And you haven't disagreed with what I said, only how I said it ;) | | |
| ▲ | k12sosse 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They'll say your 1A doesn't exist here | | |
| ▲ | conartist6 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Of course it doesn't! I acknowledge that I have no first amendment right to speak in this forum, none at all. I merely observe that the people who run the forum are themselves champions of free speech, within limits of course. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Who said otherwise? Clearly it’s about facilitating specific acts by the government. Why are y’all acting like it was so wildly broad? No one said “working with the government is inherently immoral.” |
| |
| ▲ | cooper_ganglia 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Literally the parent comment: >Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised. | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent [-] | | …doing this kind of work with the federal government. That is clearly what they are saying. You stripped all context from the discussion. You’re looking for the least defensible, worse interpretation of their comment. | | |
| ▲ | cooper_ganglia 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No. Their comment was:
“Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.” But, “…doing this kind of work with the federal government.” is added context that was not there and is based on your own interpretation. The language of the parent comment charges that simply working at a company that is engaging in this makes one complicit in an immoral act, and the complicity itself is immoral. I disagree with all of that. | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes. Working at a company explicitly profiting off of doing clearly immoral acts is wrong. It doesn’t mean working for a company contracted with the federal government is always wrong. |
|
|
|
|
