Microsoft Workers Protest Army Contract with Tech 'Designed to Help People Kill' | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft Workers Protest Army Contract with Tech 'Designed to Help People Kill'

npr.org

35 pointsvector_spaces31 comments

The problem with killing more efficiently is that after a point you don't know if you are improving your situation or worsening it.

There is this tv series in Amazon about Einstein life and you could see him opposing using his knowledge to improve weapons, while Haber(creator of Bosh Haber process) did not.

Haber was probably murdered while traveling by secret services in the same way the US killed engineers of Iran nuclear program openly. His wife and son committed suicide because of his work.

As a technical person with decades of experience in science you can do enormous harm if you really want. All you really need is a powerful reason for that.

If you see other countries developing so strong weapons they could invade your country with no cost for them, this is a powerful reason for you to collaborate.

The US has focused so much in developing force that is seen more and more in the world as the bully while countries like China build bridges, ports or roads.

You think China isn't using it's tech industry to further it's own defense and surveillance projects? That what you seem to imply?

No, the implication is that US uses its prowess disproportionally to advance its military abilities.

Haber–Bosch process greatly supported the population explosion post war. Billions of people have better access to food because of his work.

At Rubyconf a few years ago, I saw a talk about writing software for controlling drones. As I remember it, the speaker configured the drone to "lock on" to his face & follow his movements. It was more unsettling than I expected.

Do you remember who the speaker was?

Ruby On Robots Using Artoo by Ron Evans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhXyNGX38mw

Here's the drone video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp7czxk52bI

Whether you agree with this sentiment or not, people waking up to ethical questions in our field is unquestionably a good thing. It's important to ask these questions.

Countries all around the world, including the United States armed forces, are using Microsoft software in things "designed to help people kill" for years but now the US Army under Trump has a contract with Microsoft it now becomes a problem?

We have a word for that in the dictionary, it is called hypocrisy.

You're trying to tie Trump's administration to this? How? It just sounds like you're a trump supporter trying to cry "stop picking on us".

Ethical concerns raised by developers are an increasingly common occurance that have nothing to do with the current presidential administration.

It's a good place to be when workers can pick and choose which jobs to pick up.

It's not always this way. We should be glad we're here now.

I wouldn't want to be in their place if a global recession with layoffs comes. And it is long oberdue by historical standards.

They are not slaves, they aren't bound to Microsoft and Microsoft is not bound to them. Step asside. I don't have any doubt that Microsoft won't have any problem in filling their positions with better professionals. Heck, if I were younger and didn't had yet a family, I would apply for a job at Microsoft and would be ok with moving to the United States, and helping the civilized world get rid of the barbarians would be an honor.

as a member of the civilized world, would you kill ("get rid of") a "barbarian" person with your bare hands ? Indirection doesn't change anything

> helping the civilized world get rid of the barbarians would be an honor.

Sounds like you basically want to help out with a genocide.

Which genocide?

Sadam Hussein's genocide of the Kurds?

Since you got flagged for using Hitler in the other thread, now you're reaching for Sadam instead?

You should perhaps consider another method of debate.

I can't decide if it's more or less ethical to turn down these type of jobs. Even if you are anti-war, by declining such a job you open up space for the next person in line who may not be as talented of a programmer. The weapons will exist either way, but now they'll have an increased chance of having severe bugs because all the best programmers chose less morally ambiguous jobs. Maybe working for a military contractor is how you prevent the world from accidentally being destroyed. Or that's how you help it intentionally get destroyed, I don't know.

Don't allow the evil come to this world via you.

Would you rather be in the room with decision makers, trying to make sure it doesn't go over the line, or go in the wrong direction? Or just don't participate, not know what's going on, and have less competent "yes-man" in your seat. This is my daily struggle, it keeps me up.

Usually when I'm confronted with such conundrums it's a signal to me that I'm thinking about the problem too narrowly. Surely being at the table, unless you are the one making decisions, is lending yourself to someone else's cause. If you weren't a yes man one way or another you'd probably be thrown off the team anyway and replaced by another yes man. Maybe you get to sway them towards competency but you aren't changing their end goal.

There are other ways of changing the world than working with those who perpetuate violence.

I think the better question to ask is.. who stands to gain from slowing down the pace of innovation in the US military? Basically.. competing nation states. In a world full of liberty loving friendly democracies I might think more parity in military capability is desirable. In the world we have.. we basically have to be able to win a war against major the hostile major military powers.. at the same time (Russia, China, etc).

The decision makers won't put you in the room with them. They will take the weapons you built, pay you for them, and use them on whomever, and whenever they see fit.

I almost wonder if these movements are driven in part, or at least encouraged by, foreign state actors within these companies, who have interests in hampering US military dominance.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Of course it isn't. I didn't claim it was.

Not sure about this one, but in the Vietnam era, many anti-war activists were Soviet spies, or influenced by Soviet spies, or communists who have no direct connection to the Soviets but want to see communism takes over the world.

I don’t know. I remember reading a thought experiment years ago which I believe was presented by and to libertarians. If you were a German who found yourself conscripted into the Nazi military during World War 2 and assigned to an extermination camp, should you aspire to kill as few people as possible without getting fired? The supposed reasoning being that you are “saving” lives, since if you were fired and replaced, your replacement would likely kill even more people.

I suppose it’s supposed to be a challenge to consequentialism or the claim that the ends justify the means. Personally I think it’s a bit silly, and you just shouldn’t murder people.

Or maybe they'll be more talented?! But that seems beside the point.

"If I don't do this evil thing, someone else will, so I may as well" isn't a good argument. There is an enormous difference - it won't be you doing bad things. It sounds like you know it's wrong, but are coming up with a lot of justifications for not seeing it.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com