I wouldn’t personally want to work in weapons development, but I certainly wouldn’t want to work in weapons development for a military that as a result of its offensive use of its weapons is making children in the third world afraid of blue skies.
But I have a gmail and I use google maps, so I’m not really in a position to judge.
Along with the usual "If I didn't do it, someone else would".
My overall point is that drones are not a unique class of weapon. You should either have a problem with Google working on a weapons program or not. Working on drones is no worse than working on manned aircraft.
Once again that is a political issue. If someone finds a way to suddenly reduce the cost of bullets by 50%, the response from the military shouldn’t be to buy twice the number of bullets.
>with AI you won't necessarily need one man behind each drone
The article denies that is how the AI would be used.
It’s intended as a deterrent.
Repeat indefinitely for all “tools”
(There’s an entire subreddit dedicated to it. The empire did nothing wrong)
You can Always justify making a bigger better gun or “tool”.
Don’t make tools you wouldn’t want used against you.
Tech engineers in particular are more than normally exposed to the ideas of weapons and responsibility of creators for their creations.
Dodging that is the opposite of being a coder/nerd.
Gas warfare was banned after WWI, but during WWI, both allies and central powers used it before it was banned. Nuclear weapons are banned... After the Allies used them twice.
International bans on intolerable weapons are a great idea. Unilateral disarmament of a useful weapon with no international ban may be suicidal.