Their statement on this issue opened by emphasizing how eager they are to help kill people:

>I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries.

There is no universe where this can be described as anything close to ethical.

▲

fasterik 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not controversial to say that democracy is a more ethical form of government than autocracy. It's also not controversial to say that violence is sometimes justified when it's in self-defence or to prevent a greater injustice from happening. So what's the ethical objection to that statement?

	▲	xp84 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I wonder if GP subscribes to the narrative of moral equivalence between things the Iranian regime does (such as slaughtering crowds of anti-government protestors) and what Hamas does (such as the butchery and terror committed against innocent civilians on Oct 7th) and any deaths or injuries that occur directly attributable to a US military action. If so, then I suppose they'd say it's fair to condemn the US as evil because deaths have happened, after all. Pacifism and turning a blind eye to anything happening in another sovereign country seems like what that particular worldview advocates. Iran isn't pacifist, but would definitely like it if their geopolitical rivals would adopt pacifism.

▲

politician an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"ethical" is not a word that carries the connotation of a universally agreed upon set of behaviors. Different peoples, groups, and cultures vary in what they consider acceptable behavior.