Slashdot Mirror


Google Is Helping the Pentagon Build AI for Drones (gizmodo.com)

Google has partnered with the United States Department of Defense to help the agency develop artificial intelligence for analyzing drone footage, a move that set off a firestorm among employees of the technology giant when they learned of Google's involvement, Gizmodo reported on Tuesday. From the report: Google's pilot project with the Defense Department's Project Maven, an effort to identify objects in drone footage, has not been previously reported, but it was discussed widely within the company last week when information about the project was shared on an internal mailing list, according to sources who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the project. Some Google employees were outraged that the company would offer resources to the military for surveillance technology involved in drone operations, sources said, while others argued that the project raised important ethical questions about the development and use of machine learning.

95 comments

  1. "Don't be evil" by cahuenga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... is the motto of Google's corporate code of conduct, first introduced around 2000. ...

    1. Re:"Don't be evil" by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      There's a good article in the Regimental Standard about letting AI drive military drones being ungodly as well.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Google is SO evil!

    3. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought this was taken out years ago. Either way they may as well change it to, "We are evil"

    4. Re:"Don't be evil" by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Common, it's a simple and obvious move to go from a leader in search to search and destroy.

    5. Re:"Don't be evil" by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is helping the DoD evil? Is everyone supporting the DoD evil?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:"Don't be evil" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      One could easily argue that improved analysis of drone footage contributes to lessening evil on both sides.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re: "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pentagon are the good guys, so, not evil.

    8. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could also argue that the future of warfare consists of airdropping 100,000 drones equipped with guns/bombs into a combat area, and the drones killing anyone resisting. I guess all's fair in love and war, but is this something we want?

    9. Re:"Don't be evil" by redoregon69 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Thank you. Believe it or not, refusing to develop for any warlike purpose whatsoever because it's not niiiiiiice isn't exactly a way to keep the country secure. Whining aside, there are bad people out there, and developing defenses against said bad people is not a Bad Thing.

    10. Re:"Don't be evil" by e70838 · · Score: 2

      It was the motto. This example shows why they have changed their motto.

    11. Re:"Don't be evil" by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why is helping the DoD evil? Is everyone supporting the DoD evil?

      It all depends. If you're a Democrat and the president is a Republican, then yes. Likewise if you're a Republican and the president is a Democrat, then also yes. But it's alright so long as the president has the same political affiliation as you. So basically, the Googlers complaining about this probably wouldn't have any problem is Hillary was president right now.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    12. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bad people"? What are you, 12?

      Thanks to the stupidity of our government - most of the blame goes to the Republicans - we are now in a state of perpetual war. Those US drone attacks that kill civilians - women and children and babies - creates more hatred for us the US of A. We will never know peace ever again. We will see our budget deficit increase and increase because of "defense" spending. And eventually this country will go broke.

      From those "bad people's" perspective, WE are the "Bad" people. WE invaded THEIR land. We kill their children. We destroy their property.
      If that happened to us, we'd be doing the exact same thing as they are.

    13. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are bad people out there,

      Yes. As well as in them thar yoonayted steats of 'murikaah, but you're supposed to have all that sorted with your demercrazy and yer reperblikanisms. And let's also neglect to mention that your see-yah love to sow the seeds of discord all over the world, which can, and regularly does, backfire. The contras, the taliban, others, your taxpayer money funded them into existence. They just didn't go do what their 'murikaahn paymasters ment for them to go do.

      and developing defenses against said bad people is not a Bad Thing.

      This is does neither follow from the premise nor is a given. Though for the sake of argument, we'll assume both.

      Then we end up with the problem that this could easily lead to "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it". In other words, not all defenses are acceptable, so perhaps not all defensive development is acceptable, certainly not automatically so.

      Those messes you totally have to defend yourself against? You often as not caused them yourself.

    14. Re:"Don't be evil" by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...the Googlers complaining about this probably wouldn't have any problem is Hillary was president right now.

      I don't think it's as much left/right as it is Google/not-Google. If this was some start-up that won a DoD image processing contract I don't think there would be "evil" accusations.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    15. Re:"Don't be evil" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      .... is the motto of Google's corporate code of conduct, first introduced around 2000. ...

      That was Google's motto . . . they have since changed their corporate name to Alphabet

      Alphabet's motto is: "Do the right thing."

      (Go ahead and "alphabet" for Alphabet's motto, yuck, yuck.)

      Not right, as in right wing, but right as in:

      "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

      Nietzsche's writings do an excellent job in describing the behavior of Silicon Valley companies . . . why do you think they called it Über . . . ?

      Anyway, this is rather a stupid move by the US military. Google makes its money selling data of its users to whoever has enough money and is willing to pay for it.

      This means that all US drone flight data will be sold to China and Russia!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    16. Re:"Don't be evil" by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's as much left/right as it is Google/not-Google. If this was some start-up that won a DoD image processing contract I don't think there would be "evil" accusations.

      I was referring to the employees at Google who were complaining about it, not /.er's complaining about Google.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    17. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got it. Apparently I mistook the definition of "Googler". Apologies. I was focused on the "don't be evil" gibes. I won't wager on what the Googlers would do if Hillary was in office.

      Per the /. complaints, I suspect we'd see them if this was MS or Apple too.

      -gnick

    18. Re:"Don't be evil" by bigpat · · Score: 1

      .... is the motto of Google's corporate code of conduct, first introduced around 2000. ...

      Google enables evil already in its search functionality. Just go ahead and Google "How to be evil"

      Or would it be more evil to censor knowledge?

      Image recognition isn't itself evil (even guns themselves are not evil). It is just technology that could be used for good or evil. What people do with technology can be and usually eventually will be evil in some instances.

      In terms of the US government, I think it is very much a mixed bag of a history of good and evil. But I would say we are for the most part trying not to be evil... good intentions which sometimes gets us into even more trouble.

    19. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You couldn't be more wrong. The fact that you got uprated so high shows how shit this site has become with "both sides are the same" people and Trump apologists.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/04/11/daily-202-reflexive-partisanship-drives-polling-lurch-on-syria-strikes/58ec27d4e9b69b3a72331e6e/

    20. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bad people"? What are you, 12?

      This is the official way to talk about adversaries according to both military and police forces stateside. Maybe they too are all 12.

      Thanks to the stupidity of our government - most of the blame goes to the Republicans - we are now in a state of perpetual war.

      Dubyah started two wars, but while Oklahoma Bahamas didn't, he didn't actually manage to stop any in his eight years either. Or clean up any of the rest of the post-9/11 security theatre shit show.

      If that happened to us, we'd be doing the exact same thing as they are.

      With heavier ordnance.

    21. Re: "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't be.....oh fucknit

    22. Re:"Don't be evil" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      DoD does some evil things, plenty of stupid stuff, and good things as well. I served in the military, worked for a defense contractor for several years, and would have no moral problem working on this project. Many other people feel differently. Google knows that, so they tried to keep this project secret. It leaked out, and now they are scrambling to come up with a retroactive justification for the secrecy. As Mark Twain once said: "When in doubt, tell the truth."

    23. Re:"Don't be evil" by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      OK, while I have reservations about the Feds sending up drones and using AI to scan footage for the US public, I'm not so much having a problem with military functions IF, it is legislated that these can NOT be used over US airspace on the general public.

      But to a more broad topic, it seems that the majority of the Google workforce is against helping our military?

      Why would US citizen be against helping our military which in turn keeps us safe?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    24. Re: "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's strange to me to hear you say that about people in countries where our continued presence assures their citizens safety as well as brings jobs to people that have little options to feed their families.

      Having just come back from Kuwait City a day ago and speaking with locals who welcome us into their establishments because of the help and support our country provided them I fail to see your logic.

      We are not invaders, our current occupation of areas in the middle East cannot be sanctioned without the host nations blessing. We don't move troops or equipment or fly in that host nations air space unless THEY approve it.

      You should come on over and see it for yourself, the media does indeed show you the absolute tragedies of war, what you don't see are the actual aggressors and the events leading to that 5 seconds of news footage that breaks all of our hearts.

    25. Re: "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea why this suddenly surprises their employees. Google has been assisting the government in many ways since it's creation and was initially funded partially by the CIA.
      Shocking

    26. Re:"Don't be evil" by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Well, just look at the DoD's track record. Is DoD making the US safer? Is the DoD making the world a better place? Even if we eliminated the military, no country would be in a position to invade US. (We can thank the second amendment for that.) I'm not saying we should eliminate the military completely, but just making a point.

    27. Re:"Don't be evil" by gnick · · Score: 1

      Is DoD making the US safer?

      Yes. If we had no military and no retaliatory capability, Little Rocket Man wouldn't hesitate to fuck us up over our behavior in the Korean War. He's not the only one with a grudge.

      Even if we eliminated the military, no country would be in a position to invade US. (We can thank the second amendment for that.)

      I think you're grossly overestimating the effectiveness of Joe Sixpack and his Glock when confronted by a trained, armed military squad.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    28. Re: "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's strange to me to hear you say that about people in countries where our continued presence assures their citizens safety as well as brings jobs to people that have little options to feed their families.

      As often as not necessitated by... yourselves a couple decades earlier.

      It's really not "we just have to come clean up your messes since you'll fuck up anyway", it's really "we just have to come clean up the messes we incited trying to fix things that you thought weren't problems, but we sure did!"

      Just one example: How'd Iran end up run by Ayatollahs? You paved the way.

      Having just come back from Kuwait City a day ago and speaking with locals who welcome us into their establishments because of the help and support our country provided them I fail to see your logic.

      You haven't been to Iraq lately, have you? Afghanistan maybe? No?

      We are not invaders, our current occupation of areas in the middle East cannot be sanctioned without the host nations blessing.

      By and large puppet states or otherwise maneuvred to be in no position to refuse. You're good at that.

      [...] what you don't see are the actual aggressors and the events leading to that 5 seconds of news footage that breaks all of our hearts.

      Or the shenanigans behind teh scenes that actually set the scene, years before.

    29. Re:"Don't be evil" by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...they tried to keep this project secret. It leaked out... "When in doubt, tell the truth."

      That's the most evil thing I see here. Doing work that not all of your employees will approve of is just fine. Trying to hide it from them is a little shady.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    30. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried this link above and here is what I got, amazingly!

      [Submit] (a big button, but the page is empty above and below)

      About this page

      Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. This page checks to see if it's really you sending the requests, and not a robot. Why did this happen?

      IP address: 193.x.x.x
      Time: 2018-03-06T18:x:xZ
      URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+be+evil

      ---
      I kid you not! I wonder if this is self-demonstrating. You dare be anonymous and javascript-less? Have a seat over here please.
      (the "why" link has dozens of E1bcRH5_uy3A... characters too, not a link to an faq)

    31. Re: "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if one side kills all the other side's drones, have they won the battle?

    32. Re:"Don't be evil" by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Is it that much of a leap to think that such technology will be used domestically for .. terror/drugs or whatever boogeyman can they can trot out to justify an erosion in privacy and personal liberty?

      I'm sorry, but a country which employs FISA courts to try citizens in total secrecy should not be trusted with spy drones; period.

      As far as legislation preventing their use domestically, or against the general public -- the government would have absolutely no issue finding or creating a loophole. (private contractors, state/local agencies, imminent domain exceptions.. take your pick)

      The sad thing though is, once this technology is developed; the cat's out of the bag, and there's no going back. Between cell phones, license plate readers, and nonsense like this -- the days of having any kind of reasonable privacy are numbered. (if not already completely gone.)

    33. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is DoD making the US safer?

      Yes. If we had no military and no retaliatory capability, Little Rocket Man wouldn't hesitate to fuck us up over our behavior in the Korean War. He's not the only one with a grudge.

      Even if we eliminated the military, no country would be in a position to invade US. (We can thank the second amendment for that.)

      I think you're grossly overestimating the effectiveness of Joe Sixpack and his Glock when confronted by a trained, armed military squad.

      You are the highest ranking military officer on the ground with an invasion force in a foreign country, where anyone a gnats dick above the poverty line owns rifles and ammo, outside city limits. Inside the cities you have armed gangs and nobody knows how many guns, let’s say lots. Think for a minute how that will affect your performance.

      Look at what our arms “exports” do to organized crime in Central/South America for Christ’s sake. If the fight against an occupier in the US were to happen it would be an epic blood bath. Nothing short of total war would subdue us.

    34. Re:"Don't be evil" by gnick · · Score: 1

      Nothing short of total war would subdue us.

      If we completely abandoned the DoD, like was suggested, we'd be reconsidering our position not long after DPRK's missiles started landing. If American citizens, with no military to back them, were getting shot every time they tried to resist invaders, I don't think we'd see enough resistance to repel anyone big enough to make the attempt. This isn't Red Dawn.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    35. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like any other agency, they're exactly as good or evil as whoever is currently calling the shots in any given scenario.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      ^Luckily the system worked as it was supposed to, Kennedy shot it down when it got to his desk and nobody died. Would this situation play out the same way under our current admins. or 20 years from now? I'm not going to jump to conclusions either way.

      As a general rule it's better to assume x federal agency can't be trusted as an absolute moral authority. They're still made of humans who are eventually going to fail. The failing are usually out of stupidity or incompetence, but there's still room for malice to slip through the cracks if no one's paying attention.

    36. Re:"Don't be evil" by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      I'm not so much having a problem with military functions IF, it is legislated that these can NOT be used over US airspace on the general public.

      Because if there's one thing you can absolutely trust, it's that the federal government and the military always follow the law.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    37. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the issue, not the political affiliation. Support for deeply held beliefs won't change regardless of the president's political leanings. Republicans aren't going to be suddenly okay with tax increases or gun control if it's a Republican president pushing for it instead of a Democrat. The same is true for Democrats on foreign military engagements.

      There is statistical data to back this is. ABC/Washington Post did 2 surveys on support for airstrikes in Syria in 2013 when Obama was president and again in 2017 when Trump was in office. These were the results:

      For Democrats: 38% in favor in 2013 under Obama vs 37% in 2017 under Trump. 1 percent difference is well within the margin of error.

      For Republicans: 22% in favor in 2013 under Obama vs 86% in 2017 in 2017 under Trump

    38. Re:"Don't be evil" by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Some people think that murdering people from afar, when you can't even see who you are killing, is wrong, even evil.

    39. Re:"Don't be evil" by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Legislation will not stop acts of counterintelligence directed at U.S. Citizens exercising the right to peacably assemble and petition for redress.
      As long as those citizens are not white and male, no one will care.

    40. Re:"Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't be Evil" - Google in the 2000's
      "We build military robots" - Google in 2018

  2. Snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure these snowflakes are happy that our near peer competitors are doing the same thing, and are happy to give an advantage to totalitarian regimes and genocidal terrorist organizations. I'm glad they sleep well at night spying on their fellow citizens, while hypocritically whining about spying on people who wish to destroy every political position they hold dear.

  3. So, after they blow away their relatives .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google will then advertise to the survivors funeral services and flack jackets?

  4. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what it takes them to start questioning the ethics of what they're doing? The fact that what they do allows full on 1984 which is far worse than anything a drone could do wasn't enough, but now that it's being used on drones, now it's a problem? I remember at a time when Google said they only hired the best and brightest but apparently now they only hire idiots who can't see beyond the end of their nose.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it's okay as long as they avoid using white male drones!

  5. AI not for drones but analysis by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

    They're not using AI to control drones, but to analyze all the imagery collected by them.

    How is this different from, say, Facebook analyzing the photos you upload and picking out people that look like other people?

    1. Re:AI not for drones but analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not using AI to control drones, but to analyze all the imagery collected by them.

      How is this different from, say, Facebook analyzing the photos you upload and picking out people that look like other people?

      facebook's intent isn't to kill people - yet.

    2. Re:AI not for drones but analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, c'mon.

      https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project-maven-to-deploy-computer-algorithms-to-war-zone-by-years-end/

      Project Maven focuses on computer vision -- an aspect of machine learning and deep learning -- that autonomously extracts objects of interest [i.e., targets] from moving or still imagery, Cukor said.

      ...

      For now, many tasks, like computer vision, are ready for AI capabilities and many are not, Cukor said, noting that “AI will not be selecting a target [in combat] any time soon. What AI will do is compliment the human operator.”

      IOW, for now AI will be used identify targets from the data supplied by drones, but the ultimate goal will be autonomous selection as AI object labeling improves. That's what Google AI is going to help the military with. They can be publicly called a defense contractor now.

      captcha: disarm

  6. HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is good for a [corporation]child to do as it's [evil] parents s

    WAR IS BODY-POLITIC, not corporate. Seeing how U.S. Congress hasn't adjourned since U.S. bankruptcy in 1931, it has never politically declared war and all these skirmishes are nothing more than security agreements for international policing between foreign nations.

    Automated Drones only improve the flow of commerce. oh shutup Amurmurica, go back to sleeep. [ps drive through an American residential neighborhood at midnight and count all the window curtains reflecting a BSOD from the TV.]

    1. Re:HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I heard while reading this was clown music.

  7. 'member Boston Dynamics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'member

  8. Statement from Eric Schmidt by tttonyyy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    “There’s a general concern in the tech community of somehow the military-industrial complex using their stuff to kill people incorrectly”

    If there's ever a sentence where one word changes the entire context of a statement, it's that one - and the last word.

    That word is redundant from the perspective of the tech community, but extraordinarily menacing when tacked on to the statement like that.

    Don't be evil. Incorrectly.

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    1. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The notion that not all killing is incorrect is not a new one.

      E.g. the sixth commandment is often incorrectly translated to 'thou shalt not kill' but is more accurately rendered as 'thou shalt not murder', as a Rabbi complains here :

      https://winteryknight.com/2010...

      For me, one of the most irksome cases has always been the rendering of the sixth commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." In this form, the quote has been conscripted into the service of diverse causes, including those of pacifism, animal rights, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.

      Indeed, "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

      It is, of course, not just a question of etymology. Those ideologies that adduce the commandment in support of their gentle-hearted causes are compelled to feign ignorance of all those other places in the Bible that condone or command warfare, the slaughter of sacrificial animals, and an assortment of methods for inflicting capital punishment.

      Meaning there cases where killing is not murder - capital punishment,, justified wars, and killing an intruder in your home.

      Those ancient hebrews were pretty damn based!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      What do you expect from books that got translated from aramaic to greek and latin and then from greek and latin into english or german etc. ?

      Walking on the water is a phrase that means: strolling along the beach.

      A rich man can not go to paradise because a camel can not go through a needle ear: the needle ear is a small passage in Jerusalem, a full loaded camel does not fit threw it. So they get partly unloaded when they need to pass.

      I actually learned that in christian religion classes, seems most christians don't know such basics.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus' teachings in the gospels do say killing is wrong, even capital punishment (e.g. the adulterous woman, "he who is without sin cast the first stone"). That does not help a rabbi who sticks with the Torah, but it is there in the bible. Regardless, many churches (e.g. Catholic) do preach that some killing is acceptable. Self-defense, military in a defensive operation (yet they give a pass to the warmonger that is the USA), etc. pretty much the same examples you brought up. Even the Pope has guards armed with rifles, not flowers.

      I see nothing wrong with a person being a pacifist, but at least justify your stance with "I think killing is wrong no matter what" instead "this book says killing is wrong no matter what" (even if the book did say that). One is your own opinion, the other quickly falls into a discussion of etymology and logic because that person is building a cause on a faulty foundation.

    4. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Jesus' teachings in the gospels do say killing is wrong, even capital punishment (e.g. the adulterous woman, "he who is without sin cast the first stone"). That does not help a rabbi who sticks with the Torah, but it is there in the bible.

      That's disputed.

      https://www.christianity.com/b...

      NB - I'm not a Christian, many Christians do support capital punishment and you'll have to take up the compatibility of that with the Bible with them. I do know that the notion that capital punishment is incompatible with Christianity is not one that Christians universally accept.

      I see nothing wrong with a person being a pacifist, but at least justify your stance with "I think killing is wrong no matter what" instead "this book says killing is wrong no matter what" (even if the book did say that). One is your own opinion, the other quickly falls into a discussion of etymology and logic because that person is building a cause on a faulty foundation.

      It's fairly easy to make up examples where killing is justified - if someone attacks you, I'd say you're allowed to defend yourself. If your country is attacked, I'd say it would be legitimate to use force to defend it. Similarly if your home is invaded, I'd say it is legitimate to use force to fight off the invaders.

      When it comes to capital punishment you can make a somewhat chilly argument that a society with capital punishment would kill fewer innocent people than one without. E.g. in the UK the homicide rate has risen since capital punishment was abolished.

      https://fullfact.org/news/has-...

      The UK executed relatively small numbers of people in the 20th Century and even if every single one was innocent that is still less than the additional number of people who are murdered due to the increase in the homicide rate.

      Now would I support reintroducing capital punishment in the UK? I'm not sure. I do definitely support the notion that killing in self defence or a just war is not murder.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by swillden · · Score: 1

      Walking on the water is a phrase that means: strolling along the beach.

      So, Peter's lack of faith caused him to sink in sand? Or fall sideways into the water? Seems awfully hard to fail at strolling on the beach. I guess maybe that wind that scared him pushed him into the water.

      I've heard that "mistranslation" theory before, but it simply does not fit with the rest of the story. Unless you're saying it was the author of Matthew who heard the wrong translation and made the rest of the story up to fit. But if you assume that, you may as well not bother with the mistranslation part and just claim the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth. That would be a more logically consistent position.

      A rich man can not go to paradise because a camel can not go through a needle ear: the needle ear is a small passage in Jerusalem, a full loaded camel does not fit threw it. So they get partly unloaded when they need to pass.

      This is correct. Though it's usually translated as "the eye of a needle", not "the needle ear". What would a needle ear even be?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by Whibla · · Score: 1

      This seems to be in concordance with my philosophy, one rule of which roughly translates as:

      0 It's not worth killing yourself over!
      0 It's not worth killing someone else over!
      0 All rules have exceptions!
      0 It is sometimes ok to kill!

    7. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A needle ear is the end of the needle where put the thread through for sewing. You never used a needle?

      Well, walking on water can also mean being on a draft.

      But I don't know the story, neither in german/english or original greek. But I thought Petrus was fishing in a boat, or not? He was asked to walk to Jesus literally over the water, not? So because he lacked in faith he sunk ... not really a contradiction. The question would be why Jesus challenged his faith. Perhaps to show him that faith is not magic?

      Anyway once one posted the king gorge version of it somewhere, so I asked him back if he really believes that the original bible was written in such "ununderstandable gibberish", unfortunately he never answered :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of the Bible, those guys certainly did a lot of killing after the commandments! It's all genocidal slaughter and mass rape for quite a while.

    9. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by swillden · · Score: 1

      A needle ear is the end of the needle where put the thread through for sewing. You never used a needle?

      Ah, you're a German speaker. The German word is Nadelöhr, so you're figuring that since ohr is "ear", öhr is also "ear". I don't think it is, though. I checked a couple of German/English dictionaries, and with two different German-speaking colleagues (one from Berlin, one from Vienna) and both agree that öhr is not the same as ohr.

      In English, however, there is no question. The hole in a needle is an eye.

      Oh, and yes, I learned to sew, both hand-stitching and with a machine, some 40 years ago :-)

      But I don't know the story, neither in german/english or original greek. But I thought Petrus was fishing in a boat, or not? He was asked to walk to Jesus literally over the water, not?

      My point is that the notion that it's a stroll along the beach doesn't fit at all.

      You could read the story. It's very short. In fact, here you go:

      Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it. Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.” “Come,” he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Strange,
      I was certain I had looked up needle eye a view weeks ago and found needle ear in the dictionary.
      Strange tricks the mind does with you sometimes ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  9. That goes against all of world history by raymorris · · Score: 2

    The fact is, early warfare involved enslaving the men and raping the women. It was focused on the people one was attacking.

    Later came wide-area bombing of industrial areas and strategic targets such as bridges, trying to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war against you.

    Indiscriminate bombing ala WWII is now illegal under international law. Developed nations recently begun to wage war by sending laser-guided bombs to destroy a particular part of a building which is militarily important, perhaps targeting an single room. The US often notifies civilians ahead of time to stay clear of the area.

    The new way to wage war, currently being developed as the first "cold" wars are fought this way, is to send packets to your enemy's servers and try to make their computers stop working right.

    The trend line is very much AWAY from "guns/bombs into a combat area, and the killing anyone resisting". Indeed over the last 50 years military doctrine in the west has been that a long-term win requires changing the "hearts and minds" of the populace in the opposing country, "winning them over". Killing is minimized. The thinking over the last 50 years is that the more of your enemy your kill, the more they'll be seeking and getting revenge later. So better to take out their military capability, then immediately start building schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure to make them your friends.

    The history of the US vs Germany and Japan indicates it may in fact be possible, and even more effective, to win by ending the war as quickly as possible by destroying their ability to fight *even at the cost of civilian lives in the short term*. Then make friends with them the best you can. Massive force which causes the enemy to quickly stop trying to fight may in the end up costing fewer lives than trying to carefully and slowly pick off military targets without hurting civilians, resulting in a decade-long war. Precision strikes are, and have been, the trend, though.

    1. Re:That goes against all of world history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about Mossul as but one example. How the US does it : target water treatment plants, power plants, destroy all civilian infrastructure so as to make the town/city unlivable. In this way you can use precision strikes to target the populations.
      When this fails to win the battle anyway, large parts of entire neighborhoods can be razed by artillery and air strikes anyway, if things are bad enough.
      Russia and Syria seem to be better at this game - Western media is long past its late 20th century peak, even in Europe, and only spouts pro-war NATO garbage. What's happening in Ghouta is good news, and when Syria will have won the battle fewer civilians will have been killed and the place will be more livable than if the US did it.

      Maybe the US is stuck with a mentality of coming up with a list of targets to destroy rather than meaningful intelligence and objectives on the ground. Cooperation and diplomacy are inept. E.g. the US goes to Raqqa to destroy it to liberate it, with a rag-tag team of bought vassals, and doesn't benefit from intelligence assistance of Russians and Syrians, because of vain political reasons.
      It's as if getting high on the almighty power of electronic eyes, but forgetting to listen and talk.
      Then there is the problem of the high level war objectives themselves : officially, the US saves the world (the good guys win at the end, we bake cakes, the hero marries the girl etc.), in truth the goal is to dismantle Syria and have one of the rump states friendly to the Gulf and Israel (and run gas pipelines that will benefit them). The cognitive dissonance is huge there.

    2. Re:That goes against all of world history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't disagree with your trends analysis, but there are some important truths about war that it's best not to lose sight of:
      - Wars are the result of unresolvable differences between the 2 parties. If they were negotiable, they would have been solved by diplomacy long before. Thus, for a war to end, one side must submit to the will of the other and accept the previously unacceptable.
      - The purpose of war is "to kill people and break things" until the other has had enough and capitulates.

      "Wars" where we're clearing out cutthroats cannot really be won since no one really opposes that, so there is no stopping condition, thus the war is impossible to win.

      I made the drone comment you responded to, not so much as warning of things to come (and for the record, 100,000 armed drones over a city would be both quick and not terribly damaging to infrastructure), but for people to realize that the engineers at Google and other tech companies have an ethical decision to make. The question is do they want to spearhead this future into existence, or leave it to someone else at a hopefully later date.

  10. Not Just For Blowing Stuff Up! by Zorro · · Score: 1

    There are many Non-lethal uses of drones.

    Tracking fires. Monitoring traffic. Surveying sites. Construction inspection. Search and rescue. Hundreds more uses that don't involve explosives.

    Take just about any job that used to require a Helicopter can now be done by drone more cheaply.

    1. Re:Not Just For Blowing Stuff Up! by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Except this article is specifically about military drones.

    2. Re:Not Just For Blowing Stuff Up! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      The military employs both armed drones and reconnaissance drones. The armed drones typically have pilot control whenever they are in a combat zone. They have almost no need for this technology. The reconnaissance drones on the other hand would be autonomous almost all the time. The Comanche may eventually carry these types of drones. Spotting terrorist movement and zoning in on actual combatants versus civilians could actually save lives, even for military drones.

  11. Likely scenario by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    - Sir! there's a missile coming in!

    - Fire our Google Enhanced countermeasures, soldier!

    (drone plays advertisement before launch)

    * * * No Carrier * * *

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  12. Oh bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some Google employees were outraged that the company would offer resources to the military for surveillance technology involved in drone operations

    Look, princess .. if you haven't figured out by now that Google exists to collect the personal information of people, and convert that into money, you're a fucking idiot.

    Google is a fucking ad company whose money comes from collecting information about people. Don't fucking pretend this is somehow different.

    Google has long since passed the point where they get to claim "do no evil" still applies. You are in the business of surveillance, you just don't like to admit it.

  13. Google: "Being evil makes money." ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. government is, by some measures, the most violent government on earth. United States taxpayers pay for more than 740 U.S. military bases and offices.

    The effect of the U.S. government's invasion of Iraq was destroy the Iraq government, so that there could be more war. Now Iraq is no longer a managed country, and is destroyed as a society.

    U.S. taxpayers pay "... expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest".

    Some people want to kill other people. If you are a U.S. citizen, are you comfortable taking money from your bank account to pay for killing other people and destroying their property? Some of the money that is taken from you is taken using inflation.

    The founders of Google are Jews. Some Jews like the fact that the U.S. government defends Israel, and those who aren't Jews pay most of the cost. That is a pro-Jewish comment: It helps people understand one of the ways in which the Jewish culture is self-destructive. Maybe that understanding will help people of the Jewish culture stop being self-destructive.

  14. We Need It by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    All war is negative and evil but the truth is that we are forced to live with wars just as our ancestors were. If an enemy creates or improves an element of war that you do not have you will be defeated. If there are AI drones on this planet we must be certain that we have the best drones and more drones deployed than an enemy. We can only hope that the drones will be sophisticated enough to eliminate more death of non combatants than current equipment. Think what would have happened if we did not have the first atomic bombs.

    1. Re:We Need It by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Then the japanese had surrendered a few month later or starved to death.

      The bombs were not dropped "to end the war".

      They were dropped to test them in action. There is a reason why the first was an uranium bomb and the second a plutonium bomb, and they dropped in so short succession.

      The war in the pacific was more or less already over before they got dropped.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:We Need It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of stuff really gets me:

      "They were dropped to test them in action. There is a reason why the first was an uranium bomb and the second a plutonium bomb, and they dropped in so short succession.

      The war in the pacific was more or less already over before they got dropped."

      Yeah, sure. Knowing that the war ended after 2 nuclear bombs dropped, it is possible for an arm-chair expert to claim they weren't necessary. To do so all you need to do is:

      1). Know the future;
      2). Ignore the fanatical resistance the Japanese fought with in the Pacific war;
      3). Ignore the vigorous preparations the Japanese were making to defend the home islands;
      4). Disregard the way the Japanese treated both non-Japanese civilians and military prisoners;
      5). Prepare for a conventional assault on Japan itself;
      6). Continue carpet bombing Japanese cities, with the negative result of mass civilian casualties;
      7). Ignore the nuclear weapons, despite having developed them. For the war.

      You know what else the arm-chair experts cannot explain? Why the Japanese didn't surrender earlier. They were warned before the first bomb fell, then again before the second bomb fell. Yet the Japanese high command was deadlocked and unable to come to any decision. Even after Hiroshima. Only the intervention of the Emperor finally broke the stalemate and that took many days. Far too long.

      But sure, tell us your pet theory. You "would-a, could-a, should-a". Didn't.

    3. Re:We Need It by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that a large Russian army was on the coat of China staged to invade Japan? If we had gone in on foot there would have been hundreds of thousands of American soldiers killed not to mention we might be at war with Russia trying to drive them out of Japan. If we simply surrounded them they would have times to make more weapons and train civilians to fight us. Dropping two atomic bombs was the most merciful available option. Even some Japanese have praised us for those bombings as the authorities in their nation were so murderous and barbaric. I'll have to search for the date of the first hydrogen bomb but I suspect that it was a couple of years. And yes it is awful that innocents suffer in wars but it is always a problem.

    4. Re:We Need It by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If we had gone in on foot there would have been hundreds of thousands of American soldiers killed
      That is unlikely and going in on food was not the point, surround them and blockade them. Japan has no resources, except steel perhaps ... and they where starving to death already.
      However not losing the country to the Russians is a point. On the other hand they did not lose China to the Russians either.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  15. Heightened Vigilance Should Be Kept against Imperi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mar. 5, Juche 107 (2018) Monday

    Heightened Vigilance Should Be Kept
    against Imperialists' Break-up Strategy

    The imperialist reactionary forces are making desperate efforts to stop the independent forces from growing stronger and maintain domination. To this end, they are attaching big significance to the strategy of dividing countries and nations desirous of independence and estranging them from each other as well as means of military coercion.

    The situation requires all the countries and nations desirous of new independent world to heighten vigilance against the moves of the imperialists and turn out in action to foil them.

    The imperialists are the enemy common to the world progressives struggling for independence and peace, and they are the main target that the world progressives should struggle against by their concerted efforts irrespective of ism, religious belief, nation and race.

    Countries and nations desirous of independence and justice should oppose and reject the outsiders' intervention and domination and struggle against the imperialists by pooling efforts.

    No illusion should be harbored about the imperialists.

    History eloquently proves that only when non-aligned and developing countries build their own strength and intensify south-south cooperation, can they defend political independence and achieve self-sustenance in economy.

    The DPRK has closely cooperated with non-aligned and developing countries in the struggle for independence, peace and international justice against imperialism.

    Immutable is the stand of the DPRK to foil the imperialists' aggression war moves and firmly defend the world peace and security in firm unity with the world progressive people advocating independence.

    Ri Hak Nam

  16. Good 'ole War profiteering by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    nothing beats it. Seriously, you'll never meet a company that'll turn down a contract from the Pentagon.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Good 'ole War profiteering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh sure you will. Military contracts aren't what they used to be. The days of easily had cost plus contracts are mostly over. Also many of the requirements for tracking employee time, proper billing and bidding, etc... are just more than many companies can bear.
      But yes, if you are a big enough organization and can accurately predict development costs and have reasonable efficiency in development so that other companies can't beat your price then yes it's a good deal.
      Kind of reminds of what they say about poker.... It's a hard way to make an easy living.

  17. Useful idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government is one of Google's largest customers.
    2016: Regina E. Dugan Regina Dugan—the former head of Darpa who was running the Advanced Technologies and Projects lab at Google—has left the internet giant to take up a similar post at rival Facebook. https://www.wired.com/2016/04/regina-dugan-leaves-google-for-facebook
    Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, will head a new Pentagon advisory board aimed at bringing Silicon Valley innovation and best practices to the U.S. military, Those Google employees are living in the dark.

  18. *WAS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They changed it either right before or during the Alphabet Corp changeover.

    There were jokes at the time that they were just preparing for their inclusion as a TLA.... not so funny anymore, is it?

  19. Re: Heightened Vigilance Should Be Kept against Im by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree, american imperialist crapitalist scum is terrorizing other nations.

  20. flove to be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you just LOVE being free? Of course, you're being watched 24/7

  21. Will it be named SkyNet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a reasonable name for an airborne drone network, doesn't it?

  22. Don't be evil? Indeed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is a good partner though, they'll be able to cross reference weddings in countries with brown people with greater ease and targeting through pulling data from people's calendars. So should work well.

  23. Shocking!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I'm sure Official Google Asshole Shawn Willden would concur with me, I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, that such an upstanding outfit as Google would stoop to assist anyone with surveillance technology...

  24. You've given evidence of the opposite of what you by raymorris · · Score: 1

    If the facts support a certain conclusion, you can present the facts and people can see the clear conclusion.

    When you wish to advance a conclusion that is not supported by the facts, you must instead make vague, misleading references that somewhat sound like you're referencing facts, then state the conclusion you want people to draw from your misrepresentations.

    You have presented vague, misleading statements which imply the opposite of the actual facts. One can only conclude that this is because you couldn't find any actual facts which support your agenda. Therefore we can conclude that your premise is unsupported by facts and is false.

  25. Can this lead to Slaughterbot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does this reminded me of this
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CYvjjOwcWQ

  26. Re:You've given evidence of the opposite of what y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm writing about urban warfare on a /. thread, and can't come up with something better with tons of citations (which could be citations of opinion pieces too)
    Perhaps when fighting jihadis in urban warfare in a huge town you'll kill 10,000 civilians anyway, with our current technological abilities.

    The trend line is very much AWAY from "guns/bombs into a combat area, and the killing anyone resisting".

    You may be right mind you. It still goes horribly when the adversary won't surrender, fights to the end, shoots or executes fleeing civilians.Something like Berlin, April 1945. I must admit I'm not exactly qualified to solve that type of urban warfare . But smart bombs followed by flowers and candy don't work really great yet.

    thanks for answering

  27. Gotta disagree with one point by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I could highlight the good points you made, and those I agree with. That's boring, though.

    - The purpose of war is "to kill people and break things" until the other has had enough and capitulates.

    It seems to me "kill people" and "break things" are methods to (probably indirectly) achieve some purpose. Perhaps the purpose is to discourage invasions and the direct method is removing Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Perhaps the purpose is to protect your own people from further attacks by the Japanese and the direct method is remove Japan's ability and willingness to attack. There is always some goal to be achieved. Perhaps the goal is a safer hemisphere, and the direct method is the removal of Noriega from power. Failing to clearly define and communicate the goal certainly hampers one's efforts.

  28. Oh well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do we report to to get our rectum microchips implanted? May as well get it over with.

  29. USA = war crime central by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is now complicit in war crimes of US government who will undoubtedly use these drones in all sorts of sick atrocities all over the world.

  30. Get back to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they are helping The Hexagon.

  31. Re:"Don't be evil", at least not at first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first, working with the DOD doesn't seem so bad until you approach the end of the project and realize that the system works. Then you realize you just created a weapon for the politicians that can sell it or use it on anyone they feel like. In the hands of the NSA under the guise of National Guard, those drones will be figuring you out.

  32. Military Industrial Complex. by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    You think just because Google is doing this it's something new or bad? The military has always worked with companies and universities to build advanced tech systems, including AI systems. This is nothing new. Why all of a sudden Google does it and it's news? I mean go to all the AI conferences and look at the papers and who funds them, It's all NSF, or DARPA or something government/military. Why do you think it's called the Military Industrial Complex.
    Where do you think all the self driving cars and system came from? Military funding.
    I worked on the Unmanned Ground Vehicle systems and we built the foundations for all of this, and that was 20 years ago. We used Neural Network road following and cooperative robotics and all that stuff. And the robotics could be vehicles and drones.
    So its no surprise that Google is working on building this stuff and then going to take advantage of the results to build their own systems. Google is a company trying to make money, just like Northrop Grumman or Space X does in building rockets for the Military.