←back to thread

Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

(www.washingtonpost.com)
617 points jbegley | 8 comments | 04 Feb 25 20:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
tmnvdb ◴[04 Feb 25 23:14 UTC] No.42940589[source]▶
Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.
replies(10): >>42940656 #>>42940666 #>>42940969 #>>42940977 #>>42941357 #>>42941474 #>>42941623 #>>42941755 #>>42941872 #>>42944147 #
ckrapu ◴[04 Feb 25 23:18 UTC] No.42940656[source]▶
There is a wide range of moral and practical opinions between the statement “all weapons are evil” and “global corporations ought not to develop autonomous weapons”.
replies(3): >>42940711 #>>42940795 #>>42941137 #
CamperBob2 ◴[04 Feb 25 23:23 UTC] No.42940711[source]▶
Tell Putin. He will entertain no such inhibitions.
replies(2): >>42940920 #>>42941459 #
vkou ◴[05 Feb 25 00:21 UTC] No.42941459{3}[source]▶
We have Putin at home, he spent the past weekend making populist noises about annexing his neighbours over bullshit pretenses.

I'm sure this sounds like a big nothingburger from the perspective of, you know, people he isn't threatening.

How can you excuse that behaviour? How can you think someone like that can be trusted with any weapons? How naive and morally bankrupt do you have to be to build a gun for that kind of person, and think that it won't be used irresponsibly?

replies(2): >>42941589 #>>42942150 #
1. tmnvdb ◴[05 Feb 25 00:32 UTC] No.42941589{4}[source]▶
I understand the sentiment but the logical conclusion of that argument is that the US should disarm and cease existing.
replies(1): >>42941627 #
2. vkou ◴[05 Feb 25 00:36 UTC] No.42941627[source]▶
The better logical conclusion of that argument is that the US needs to remove him, and replace him with someone who isn't threatening innocent people.

That it won't is a mixture of cowardice, cynical opportunism, and complicity with unprovoked aggression.

In which case, I posit that yes, if you're fine with threatening or inflicting violence on innocent people, you don't have a moral right to 'self-defense'. It makes you a predator, and arming a predator is a mistake.

You lose any moral ground you have when you are an unprovoked aggressor.

replies(2): >>42941749 #>>42942120 #
3. pixl97 ◴[05 Feb 25 00:46 UTC] No.42941749[source]▶
Ya go poke people with nukes and see how that works out
replies(1): >>42941969 #
4. vkou ◴[05 Feb 25 01:06 UTC] No.42941969{3}[source]▶
You are making an excellent argument for nuclear proliferation.
5. tmnvdb ◴[05 Feb 25 01:19 UTC] No.42942120[source]▶
I'm not a fan of Trump but I also feel he has not been so bad that I think that surrendering the world order to Russia and China is a rational action that minimizes suffering. That seems be an argument that is more about signalling that you really dislike Trump than about a rational consideration of all options available to us.
replies(2): >>42942192 #>>42945768 #
6. vkou ◴[05 Feb 25 01:24 UTC] No.42942192{3}[source]▶
It's not a shallow, dismissable, just-your-opinion-maaan 'dislike' to observe that he is being an aggressor. Just like it's not a 'dislike' to observe that Putin is being one.

There are more options than arming an aggressor and capitulating to foreign powers. It's a false dichotomy to suggest it.

7. kombine ◴[05 Feb 25 08:44 UTC] No.42945768{3}[source]▶
> I'm not a fan of Trump but I also feel he has not been so bad

He literally threatened a peaceful nation (also an ally) of invasion and annexation. How worse can it get?

replies(1): >>42964650 #
8. tmnvdb ◴[06 Feb 25 17:42 UTC] No.42964650{4}[source]▶
If he actually did it that would be far worse.