Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazysheepherd | Hacker News Reader

This _is_ a very valuable action logically let alone morally. In the next decades either we resolve to mitigate this "us or them" mentality on this earth, or pure physics and math will resolve to see the end of the civilization as we know it.

Google is a US company yes, but with so many engineers from all over the world and customers from every corner of the world, who is "them" for a Google employee really?

And before you say so, I know this is how things(power dynamics, etc.) work today. That is exactly why this kind of movement towards a change is good and needed.

View on HN

Lemme just underline this. Google engineers come from all over the world, and Google products are built to serve people all over the world. The Googlers opposed to Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better.

Preemptive lazy answers for lazy replies: Companies only exist to increase stockholder value: Some of us hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Improved drone efficiency is better for everyone: hahahaha.

> Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better.

I think that's a mischaracterization that's important to correct in the name of accuracy:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project...:

> The polarized debate about Google and the military may leave out some nuances. Better analysis of drone imagery could reduce civilian casualties by improving operators’ ability to find and recognize terrorists.

Also, a lack of "AI"-based image analysis hasn't stopped the US military from carrying out airstrikes with drones, and denying them better analysis tools is unlikely to cause them to reduce their frequency. The US military tries to avoid civilian casualties while still performing its mission, so giving it the tools to do so could arguably prevent civilian noncombatant deaths.

Sorta like how increasing surgical strikes in Vietnam will end the war faster and save thousands of lives?

These sorts of arguments come up constantly in these discussions, and are laughable. More efficient targeting just means more strikes. And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway...

> Sorta like how increasing surgical strikes in Vietnam will end the war faster and save thousands of lives?

Maybe not the former, but certainly the latter if it meant a reduction in alternatives like carpet bombing, etc.

In World War II, the military would drop thousands of bombs over a wide area in the hope that a few would land on a German ball bearing factory. Now that they have more precise weapons, they don't need to do that anymore to accomplish similar missions. If the military feels it needs to smash something small, they'll use a big, oversize hammer if they don't have a small one available. They don't give up and go home.

> More efficient targeting just means more strikes.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how you could reasonably be so certain about that.

> And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway...

As is de rigueur for military targeting.

I could very well be wrong, but I believe the statement these people were making is that they did not want to work on technology that kills people. It doesn't really matter if the work they would be doing would be to make it kill less 'good' people and more 'bad' people, they just don't want to work on stuff that kills people.

Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me. If you build better recognition systems for drones they will be better able to mitigate collateral damage. Is this not exactly what you want?

or they will better identify a target and choose to bomb the civilians anyway because they can get away with it.

"Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me"

Because it's for the US military. They have an unbelievably shitty track record in not hitting civilians. It was shitty under Obama, and it's gotten even shittier under Trump. And the issue isn't the ability to target better; it's that the military simply does not care.

That may be your opinion but I can assure you it is not accurate. Your hysteria is clouding your judgement.

It's not accurate that the military has a terrible track record regarding civilian casualties? Go ahead and offer your proof to the contrary, then.

I don't know if it's true or not, but based on a little thinking about availability bias and publication bias suggest it's plausible.

No one is likely to write about "targets hit exactly as planned, no collateral damage" and even if they do as a puff piece for the military we're unlikely to remember that.

In contrast, every single mistargeting is plausibly worldwide news and our brains are wired to remember such things.

To be clear, I don't have any hard data either way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's true given the asymmetry of typical cognitive bias in evaluating such a claim. The folk version of this is that you "only ever hear about the CIA's mistakes and not of their successes".

It's not accurate that the military doesn't care. You are foolish.

Please stop and try to talk to some active military personnel before you just pass judgement like this. War is messy. This isn't a video game. The US military goes to extreme lengths in order to avoid collateral damage, including the blood of our own soldiers to protect as many innocents as possible. It's unfortunate that civilians will die but saying the military doesn't care is so beyond the pale that it just sounds like pure hysteria.

> War is messy. This isn't a video game

Pretty much is when the biggest risk to one side is from sitting on their butts remote piloting drones.

For Google, "Us" is the government that could in a pinch just grab the damned technology and leave them with next to no recourse, and "Them" is the governments who can't.

Hopefully, if you're choosing to work for a company, you understand that you're at least implicitly adopting those definitions, and that you may find the licensing requirements of your work hastily restructured in an emergency situation.

I do not claim scenario you proposed is not likely, but submitting to what harms you will only increase the harm and abuse over time. Standing against will make it less and less likely, over a long period of time.

It is just like the fear of darkness. As long as you avoid the darkness, your fear will escalate.

I acknowledge that the safest condition for me, my loved ones and next generations is not the one which has draconian governments, one-button-away nuclear war and killer drones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com