Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

> all tech giants of that era did that with pride during WWII

During WWII the US was freeing the world from oppression; now it's more seen as the oppressor. The side you're on is pretty important (as it was during WWII).

This is even more true in the case of drone operations and so-called "AI" assisted actions, where operators sitting safely in air-conditioned facilities in the California desert can decide to remotely kill people with no risk to themselves.

I very much understand why a normal Google employee would prefer to have no part in that. Google understands it too, since it actively tried to keep the deal secret and minimized its impact when it became known.

View on HN

> The side you're on is pretty important

So, generally and from what I understand about US drone operations, these strikes target people like ISIS and other Islamic extremists. Following this, in a general sense, the sides are the US and terrorist religious extremists.

The way you frame your point makes it sound like your on one side or the other. If that is the case, I would much rather be on the side of the US than the extremest who murder people for arbitrary reasons.

If that is not the way you meant for it to be framed, please correct me.

> This is even more true in the case of drone operations and so-called "AI" assisted actions, where operators sitting safely in air-conditioned facilities in the California desert can decide to remotely kill people with no risk to themselves.

Why does the risk to the warfighter matter? Would you rather they send infantry to go and assault the target? Why wouldn't you want to minimize the risk to the soldiers in the field by using tech to hit a target rather than men on the ground?

>So, generally and from what I understand about US drone operations, these strikes target people like ISIS and other Islamic extremists.

While that is the official reason/target, the question of who actually gets killed in those drone strikes is a contentious issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-peopl...

Oh I don't deny that the government royal screws up drones strikes sometimes. It is terrible that that occurs.

It's unlikely I can convince you of anything regarding your two questions, but... if everything is so clear-cut and right and wrong are easy to tell appart, why is this an issue with Google (trying to hide it) and Google employees (protesting / quitting)?

> if everything is so clear-cut and right and wrong are easy to tell appart

I would never in my life assert that these issues, ethically, are simple.

I think that Google trying to hide this information is more connected to their image and culture more so than anything else.

From an outsider looking in, it seems that Google has this hyper progressive culture that thousands of people live and work in. So the company helping the US military get better at killing people with flying robots clashes with the ideals expressed by the company and are a part of its culture.

Is your question relating to my comments on 'sides'? Your original comment is what brought up sides. When you think about this issues, what do you mean by sides?

You just say "the side your on is pretty important". You use WWII to try to bolster this claim, but that doesn't mean anything to me in the context. I trying to understand what you mean in your comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com