←back to thread

Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance

(www.washingtonpost.com)
617 points jbegley | 3 comments | 04 Feb 25 20:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
uejfiweun ◴[04 Feb 25 23:26 UTC] No.42940754[source]▶
Dollar short and a day late. The future of the US tech industry belongs to those who weren't interested in performative woke nonsense like this during the last decade.
replies(4): >>42941043 #>>42941376 #>>42941529 #>>42941636 #
aprilthird2021 ◴[05 Feb 25 00:14 UTC] No.42941376[source]▶
How is it woke nonsense to not want to create a weapon that probabilistically determines if a civilian looks close enough like a bad guy to missle strike them?
replies(3): >>42941543 #>>42941760 #>>42942262 #
tmnvdb ◴[05 Feb 25 00:47 UTC] No.42941760[source]▶
This sentiment ignores the reality on the ground in favor of performative ideological purity - civilians are already getting blown up all the time by systems that do not even attempt to make any distinction between civilians and soldiers: artillery shells, mortars, landmines, rockets, etc.
replies(3): >>42941816 #>>42941874 #>>42944581 #
1. pixl97 ◴[05 Feb 25 00:52 UTC] No.42941816[source]▶
And indiscriminate has a cost that can slow people from using them.

Imagine you have a weapon that can find and kill all the 'bad guys'. Would you not be in a morally compromised position if you didn't use it? You're letting innocents die every moment you don't.

* warning definitions of bad guys may differ leading to further conflict.

replies(1): >>42941886 #
2. tmnvdb ◴[05 Feb 25 00:58 UTC] No.42941886[source]▶
The logic of this argument implies we should develop weapons with maximal collateral damage to deter their usage.
replies(1): >>42941929 #
3. pixl97 ◴[05 Feb 25 01:01 UTC] No.42941929[source]▶
Which begs the question of if we can escape the Red Queen hypothesis.

Personally I don't think we can as a species.