Google Workers Urge CEO To Pull Out of Pentagon AI Project (nytimes.com)

Thousands of Google employees, including dozens of senior engineers, have signed a letter protesting the company's involvement in a Pentagon program that uses artificial intelligence to interpret video imagery and could be used to improve the targeting of drone strikes (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source). From a report: The letter, which is circulating inside Google and has garnered more than 3,100 signatures, reflects a culture clash between Silicon Valley and the federal government that is likely to intensify as cutting-edge artificial intelligence is increasingly employed for military purposes. "We believe that Google should not be in the business of war," says the letter, addressed to Sundar Pichai, the company's chief executive. It asks that Google pull out of Project Maven, a Pentagon pilot program, and announce a policy that it will not "ever build warfare technology."

That kind of idealistic stance, while certainly not shared by all Google employees, comes naturally to a company whose motto is "Don't be evil," a phrase invoked in the protest letter. But it is distinctly foreign to Washington's massive defense industry and certainly to the Pentagon, where the defense secretary, Jim Mattis, has often said a central goal is to increase the "lethality" of the United States military.

Comments

Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of helping them to make drone strikes more accurate, let's let the Pentagon continue to hit civilian bystanders too.

Re:Business as usual

[Krishnoid]

I'm kind of surprised the engineers, of all people, don't remember the lesson from history that an AI would hopefully learn that the only winning move is not to play.

Re:Business as usual

[pr0t0]

What other kinds of weapons systems might the Pentagon pursue in the future, thinking they can always turn to Google to solve those niggling ethical issues...like killing completely innocent people in the name of collateral damage? This could force Google and its employees into the "Well if we don't, the new mega-bad weapon will kill civilians...we have to" way of thinking. It's not Google's job to ensure the safety or accuracy of weapons systems unless they want it to be. And at least some of the employees clearly don't.

Of course, minimizing civilian casualties should be a priority. A great way to start, is not to not bomb a populated area! But if you must, then sure, either hire engineers in-house or outsource. But if you do the latter, it's up to those contractors as a company, and their employees on a personal level, to decide what of the world's problems they want to apply their abilities and education solving.

They might feel their time is better spent solving a problem that may save millions of lives (like sanitary water), and not the hundreds or thousands of lives accidentally killed in combat.

Re:Business as usual

[Sarten-X]

Well, that's it. This discussion's pretty well covered, now.

Seriously, this is exactly the dilemma. Back when I did defense work (connected distantly to attacks), nobody ever had intention of hitting civilians. It was bad intel, bad guidance, or just a plain and simple screwup. We just kept trying to be better, adding more confirmations, better cameras, better training... and slowly things got better.

None of those improvements were cheap. A small improvement in image quality might mean a few hundred million dollars in expenses, mostly in paperwork to track exactly what work happened where and how, but if it provides the critical information to prevent a single bad mission, it's worth the price.

It's not a popular opinion, but it seems to me that war is inevitable. People are always finding new means and reasons to kill each other, and they'll do it with or without my help. The best we can do as engineers is to make sure that the attacks are as precise and successful as possible, to minimize the innocent casualties.If an AI can tell the difference in 10 pixels between a firearm flash or the sun reflecting off a camera lens, I'm all in favor of it.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Would anyone prefer to send their kids into a battlefield, rather than robots?

We need weapons. Refusing to invest in their development doesn't make the threats go away. The better our weapons are, the faster we can put down the threats with even less loss of life.

I understand that building weapons makes many people squeamish. Many of us just aren't natural born killers, we don't want to kill, and we don't want our work to be used to kill. But none of that eliminates the necessity of killing. Nor the necessity of being good at it.

Re:Business as usual

[gnick]

AI might come to that conclusion. Image recognition and guidance algorithms won't. We're not dealing with AI. We never are.

Re: Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes sense. So why do we sell so many weapons?

Re:Business as usual

[drinkypoo]

Back when I did defense work (connected distantly to attacks), nobody ever had intention of hitting civilians.

Not as far as you knew.

The problem is, anyone who joins the military for any reason is supporting war in a variety of ways — not least signing on the line that they're willing to kill if instructed to do so.

It's not a popular opinion, but it seems to me that war is inevitable. People are always finding new means and reasons to kill each other, and they'll do it with or without my help.

War is not inevitable. Most wars are deliberately caused and/or fueled by people with something to gain.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

This is based on a false dichotomy... the drone strikes are just COINTELPRO on a world level.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when I did defense work (connected distantly to attacks), nobody ever had intention of hitting civilians.

Not as far as you knew.

The problem is, anyone who joins the military for any reason is supporting war in a variety of ways — not least signing on the line that they're willing to kill if instructed to do so.

It's not a popular opinion, but it seems to me that war is inevitable. People are always finding new means and reasons to kill each other, and they'll do it with or without my help.

War is not inevitable. Most wars are deliberately caused and/or fueled by people with something to gain.

Go on and sit up high behind your safety wall. Scorn the workers building the wall who get mud on their hands so that you can be safe to moralize them. If you want to prove how righteous you are then preach outside the city gates.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming the two options are either: 1. Inaccurate bombings. 2. Accurate bombings. Of course, there is a third option: Not bombing.

The USA is not involved in any defensive wars right now, there is no reason to support an active military during what should be a time of peace.

Re:Business as usual

[Thelasko]

People are always finding new means and reasons to kill each other, and they'll do it with or without my help. The best we can do as engineers is to make sure that the attacks are as precise and successful as possible, to minimize the innocent casualties.If an AI can tell the difference in 10 pixels between a firearm flash or the sun reflecting off a camera lens, I'm all in favor of it.

100 years ago, the belief was that war could be ended if there were only more powerful weapons. Those weapons were created, and their creators went on to regret creating them. Sure, people will continue to kill each other, but they can do it without my help.

History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.

I became an engineer to make the world better, not to tear it apart.

Re:Business as usual

[gweihir]

They are hitting innocent bystanders because they do not care. That will continue. They just want to be sure to hit the actual target as well.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the point entirely. Those of us that don't condone eternal warfare are implicitly stating that we're willing to defend our own turf should the need ever actually arise. Keep defending manslaughter in the name of freedom though. When was the last time congress declared war? It's just a formality these days.

Re: Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

How about let's stop being World Bully and start listening to people for a change? Maybe not bomb them? Just a thought. Solve problems with negotiations and diplomacy instead of fueling the military industrial complex with endless wars?

Re: Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Your naive idealism has no power to save anyone, or uplift them. A man without power is not a party to negotiations, he's just a plebeian in the back shouting "veto!" So far, Bismarck has yet to be proven wrong when when he said "the great questions of the day are decided ... by blood and iron."

Re:Business as usual

[Hognoxious]

History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.

That would make it a negative sum game.

Re: Business as usual

[c6gunner]

History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.

This is by far the stupidest comment I've read in recent history. A zero sum game is, by definition, one in which a win for one side is a proportional loss for the other. If I want to play and you don't, you lose by default.

You have to be completely ignorant of human history to decide that "not playing" is a winning move.

Re: Business as usual

[c6gunner]

Because your allies need weapons too. Duh.

Re:Business as usual

[Solandri]

100 years ago, the belief was that war could be ended if there were only more powerful weapons. Those weapons were created, and their creators went on to regret creating them.

Considering the U.S. and Soviet Union never went to direct war against each other, and that the eventual resolution to the Cold War was based on economics and politics, it seems to have worked. If you look at all the wars since Nagasaki was bombed, they've between two non-nuclear states, or between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state. The nuclear states have steadfastly avoided direct war against each other. Even when one forcibly invades and annexes territory which belongs to a non-nuclear state that other nuclear states have sworn to defend (ironically in exchange for giving up their nukes).

History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.

War is a zero sum game. But choosing not to play does not mean you're no longer a player - it does not raise an invincible shield around you. You simply get attacked and conquered by someone who plays, and the effect of your choice is nullified when you cease to exist. Your assets and resources get transferred to your conquerer. Choosing not to play doesn't mean you don't participate in the zero sum the game; it means you end up guaranteed to in the negative half of the zero sum game. It's like thermodynamics. Everyone likes to dream of all the things that are possible if you could simply quit the game. But the reality is that you're not allowed to quit. Even if every country and every person on Earth disarmed, all it would take is for one person to sharpen a stick and mug someone with it to start the process all over again.

War exists because of a simple economic reality - it's often cheaper to simply take assets and resources from your neighbors rather than work to build them up yourself. If you abstain from preparing for war, you do nothing to change that fundamental economic incentive. The way to avoid war is to make it more expensive for someone to take your assets and resources from you, than they stand to gain by taking them.

I became an engineer to make the world better, not to tear it apart.

From an engineering perspective, you strive to make the world a better place, and to protect the better place you've made. If your government chooses to misuse the tools you've created to wage unjust wars, then the solution to that is a political modification of your government, not abstention. Abstention means someone who doesn't share your ideals invades and takes everything you've created for themselves.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

War is not inevitable. Most wars are deliberately caused and/or fueled by people with something to gain.

As is is inevitable that somone will have something they can gain by waging a successful war this reduces to 'war is inevitable'.

About the only way to make war obsolete would be to issue nuclear weapons and viable second strike launch infrastructure to every nation in the world. Then MAD would prevent anyone form having anything to gain from war, and provided the world survives the wave of tin-pot doctors who nuke their own people because they called him names on the Internet, there will probably be no more shooting-wars. Just trade wars, political posturing, cold wars, and espionage (including state sponsored terrorism that the state disavows knowledge of).

Re:Business as usual

[WaffleMonster]

Instead of helping them to make drone strikes more accurate, let's let the Pentagon continue to hit civilian bystanders too.

I suspect Jevons paradox may also apply to drones.

Re:Business as usual

[Stephan Schulz]

Would anyone prefer to send their kids into a battlefield, rather than robots?

Probably not. So having an army of people who are someones kids makes a nation much more reluctant to engage in war. Seems like a good thing to me. The less painful war is, the bigger the temptation to play with all the shiny toys.

Re:Business as usual

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This would be to increase analysis thus decreasing collateral damage. That is a good thing (except save that highly accurate stuff might increase a tendency to use it, but I doubt that is their point.)

A better question is the development of that kind of capability at all, as it makes it easier for a smaller cabal to rule with their robots.

Of course our government leads the charge in creating a panopticon with little more than a checkbox, "You did bother to get a warrant, right?" to catch a few criminals, and this is dutifully abused by places like China and Russia to spy on and hassle political opponents.

I'm sure they have no unlogged back end a G. Gordon Liddy type could abuse.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

The US and the Soviet empire have fought directly against each other (jets in Korean war for example). And the economies have fought directly against each other (proxy wars). It didn't work at all. The Korean war was like WWII in ferocity, and was fought between superpowers (China+Russia Vs USA). Or the vietnam war which had more bombs dropped than all of WWII. Or the Afgan conflict V1.0 (USSR), incredibly violent.

War didn't stop at all. It just got a marketing makeover.

Re:Business as usual

[G00F]

This is good stuff, and should be modded up for that.

It clearly shows how pacifism while in theory works, but in practice fails. And why rather than quitting, you should try to make changes.

Re:Business as usual

[nonBORG]

War is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

Re:Business as usual

[virtualXTC]

There is one horrible flaw in you premise: Putin is no Gorbachev. His intelligence background deludes him into believing all protests are sponsored by foreign actors, and thus democracy is a farce. He also believes that if he looses control as a dictator, he will be killed, and as such there is no limit to what he will do to stay in power.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/video/putin...

Re:Business as usual

[Aristos Mazer]

Some of us are willing to die at the hands of a bad person than be the so-called good person with a gun. It is a hard stance to hold to some days, I admit -- there are real evils in the world, and consistently saying, "I will not meet violence with more violence," is very hard. The temptation to say, "ISIS needs to be destroyed," or whatever the enemy is, is very strong. But I do believe that in aggregate, we are better off the more of us that insist on non-violence, and getting my country to the position of non-violence starts with me taking that position personally. And that means my work.

Re: Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

In the recent revelations of F@ckbook's privacy debacle, I think gooooooogle is trying to save face and say they aren't 'evil' but, we know they are just as culpable. This is a 'grassroots' effort to show how much the google cares about you. They do the same thing. Who would say "don't be evil" if they weren't about to be evil? I don't give a shit if you believe me; never have. I don't post links because I am lazy and I don't care what you think. GLTU! You're going to need it. Quite frankly you're lucky I took the time to post this drivel....

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if every country and every person on Earth disarmed, all it would take is for one person to sharpen a stick and mug someone with it to start the process all over again.

War exists because of a simple economic reality - it's often cheaper to simply take assets and resources from your neighbors rather than work to build them up yourself. If you abstain from preparing for war, you do nothing to change that fundamental economic incentive. The way to avoid war is to make it more expensive for someone to take your assets and resources from you, than they stand to gain by taking them.

Uh, no. The whole idea of a government is that it does the latter which makes "harpen a stick and mug someone with it" more expensive. A world without war is not a world without police. Not every criminal with a stick is waging war. The simple economic reality is that almost universally (1) you're better off to trade rather than wage war and (2) it's less costly to placate a people with aid than to raise up an army to combat them. The latter part is precisely the reason the rich aren't murdered in the street in most developed countries. The former is the basis of that aid--and luxury--being economical to give to the poor of a country or of other countries.

The main reason for war then is chiefly looking at the short term benefit. Ie, it's the irrational act that treats other nations like enemies and ignores that war is by its very nature the squandering of resources. It makes sense only if you look at the selfishness of human genetics trying to procreate and think nothing of the actual lives of the people around you. Why else would people strive to claim a whole nation as of the same kind? It is precisely so that people are willing to sacrifice their own life so another equivalent person can procreate and prosper. At its core, war is almost universal about the delusion of the soldier who believes he will not die or that his death overall will benefit his family.

In short, it's almost universally rank stupidity. It's not based on a sound system of threat and counter threat to make actual fighting too costly to engage in. Yes, to fight defensively makes sense, but to start a war does not. And yet most defensive actions are invariably offensive acts which start wars. It's little wonder people try to pull in the bullshit like calling wars just. Rationality and logic disappeared long ago.

Re:Business as usual

[rtb61]

It is a valid personal choice that you have zero right to contest in any way. Upon a life balance basis, contributing more to life than you consume from it. Contributing to engineering specifically designed to kill, to rapaciously consume life, just killing it to kill it and diminish your life's worth to induce a completely undesirable negative balance. Your engineering potentially killing millions and placing that negative burden upon your spirit, is a self destructive obscenity and any living being as a inherent right to avoid. It is extremely offensive that you would challenge that. That you would expect others to condemn themselves, to feed their greed by engineering the mass murder of others, to diminish themselves, to one could say, nothing but a silent scream in the dark.

Just stop fucking killing (lets no lie about the war on terror, the US is not fighting it, it is creating it to feed the military industrial complex and facilitate resource theft from all over the world). Certainly do not tempt others into, to damage their spirits, to diminish their existence just because you are going to a dark place, do not try to take others there with you. Your negative burden is your own, the silent scream you already try to drown out with empty and often dark entertainments, noise to hide out your own fears, is your future burden. There is zero guilt in not participating in the murder of others, I would not do engineering to kill, not have a burden that could last well beyond my time to continue to condemn me, nor would I ever in the most ugly fashion imaginable tempt others to.

Do not participate in death industries, nothing good comes of it, don't lie to yourselves. At least some Google employees are good people, I wish them the best in their endeavours for a better humanity.

Re:Business as usual

[skovnymfe]

Pacifism is not an activity, it's a movement. It doesn't work until you achieve critical mass. You not going to war won't change anything, but if you can get half the population on your side then things are different.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

> Considering the U.S. and Soviet Union never went to direct war against each other, and that the eventual resolution to the Cold War was based on economics and politics, it seems to have worked.

It is not over. You might even say it has begun again.

And Russia's first "opening salvo" was the election of Donald Trump.

Re:Business as usual

[darth.hunterix]

Sharpened stick? What for? All you need is to be stronger than your victim. Or gang up 10:1.

Re:Business as usual

[darth.hunterix]

Uh, yes. In this "everyone agrees to disarm" fairy tale you have to disarm the police as well. Otherwise someone who wants to wage war will create an army in SWAT uniforms and use it do conquer his defenceless neighbour.

Re: Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Collectively, not playing is the only way to win. If we're thinking of a "them against us" sort of scenario, then of course, playing and winning is the way to "win". That requires you kill other humans for your own ends, so what "win" means is somewhat up for debate.

There is something of a realisation (in the West, at least) that we're all basically the same. Whatever colour you are, whatever gender you are, wherever in the world you are - we're all basically the same. With that in mind, in a war, why are you killing the guy next door? What is achieved by dong so? More particularly, what is achieved in doing so that couldn't be achieved in other ways?

Re:Business as usual

[Major Blud]

which belongs to a non-nuclear state that other nuclear states have sworn to defend

Are you talking about the Budapest Memorandum? No where in there does it say that any of the signatories are sworn to defend the Ukraine:

1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders.

2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in order to influence its politics.

4. Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, "if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Business as usual

[kenh]

Please, stop with the "Russians threw the election" meme.

Can't you admit that:

A) Hillary tried a new kind of campaign
B) Hillary already lost one presidential campaign
C) Hillary was a horrible 'retail' candidate
D) Hillary prioritized fundraising over visiting several states in general campaign
E) Hillary was under active investigation personally during campaign for previous bad choices
F) Hillary faced a strong anti-Hillary headwind from her 30 years in the public eye

But instead you discount all that and argue that a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads and some make-up social media stories gave trump the Presidency?

Honestly, if that's all it took to beat her billion dollar campaign, she was a lousy candidate and deserved to lose.

Re: Business as usual

[kenh]

The USA is not involved in any defensive wars right now

Points to the southern border of the US...

there is no reason to support an active military during what should be a time of peace.

not

Right, because we can spin-up any appropriate size military response in a moment's notice when under attack, right? That's like saying there's no need to invest and maintain a backup datacenter to support your corporation when there's no emergency - just keep a Sunguard brochure in your top desk drawer and when disaster strikes, just call them up and order up a backup datacenter solution when you need it.

SMH

Re: Business as usual

[kenh]

The googl E employees are 'good people's if and only if they actually resign their jobs if Google doesn't capitulate to their demands, otherwise they are toothless SJW who put the appearance of seeming virtuous ahead of actually being virtuous.

Re: Business as usual

[c6gunner]

Collectively, not playing is the only way to win.

That would be grand if we were a collective. We are not.

There is something of a realisation (in the West, at least) that we're all basically the same. Whatever colour you are, whatever gender you are, wherever in the world you are - we're all basically the same.

In superficial traits, sure. In all the ways that matter? Hells no. Unless you think that Hitler and Einstein are basically the same, in which case go fuck yourself.

With that in mind, in a war, why are you killing the guy next door?

Because he wants to kill me, control me, and/or take my stuff.

What is achieved by dong so?

If I win I get to keep my stuff and enjoy my freedom. If he wins he gets my stuff and gets to control me or kill me.

More particularly, what is achieved in doing so that couldn't be achieved in other ways?

As soon as you find "other ways" to keep an invading army from taking over there's a Nobel Peace Prize with your name on it. I look forward to reading about it.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yes. In this "everyone agrees to disarm" fairy tale you have to disarm the police as well.

A police force can exist without arms. And arms can be fashioned as necessary to deal with threats. The fundamental basis for a society is that a sufficient number of people are wiling to collective defend things like property rights so that any individual or group will be dissuaded and if needed stopped from waging war.

Otherwise someone who wants to wage war will create an army in SWAT uniforms and use it do conquer his defenceless neighbour.

In short, people are corrupt and will wage war on the defenseless. And my counterpoint that the supposedly defenseless will raise their own army to fight off these people and the cycle starts anew. It grows back to the point that the only time the world will agree that everyone will disarm will be the day that we've grown beyond the point of seeing another person as a target to be exploited and instead see another person as part of the whole and hence not one to be attacked.

I do not attack my neighbor not because of some fear of a mob killing me in retaliation. I do not attack my neighbor because I have empathy with him as part of the whole Even if the whole world felt this way toward each other, of course in isolated cases there would be a need for a mob/police to stop those attacks. But that would not be to the scale of a war.

If you beg the question, you'll get the answer you expect. If I beg the question, I'll get the answer I expect. In neither case are we talking about reality. Neither you nor I know the reality that could be. The best that can be said is that I do not know of nor can think of a reasonable path to a world where everyone would be disarmed. For that reason, I do not believe that if a utopia of non-violence could exist that disarming everyone would the answer. Hence, any path that would exist would require arming police and probably the general populace. The core of peace is people deciding not to murder people and not listening to their government or really any group that would say to kill en masse.

Re:Business as usual

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Sure, people will continue to kill each other, but they can do it without my help.

And when one of those people tries to kill you for no reason other than you're not like them, don't subscribe to their theology or ideology or racial purity or are on the wrong side of a dotted line on a map, you'll depend on other people to defend you. Those people who are putting their lives on the line for your ass deserve to have the best available technology and training so they can do it with minimal risk to their own lives.

I'm a former Marine. in general I strongly dislike people who espouse viewpoints such as yours. That said, I have put my life on the line to defend people like you. It would be nice if you'd quit opposing efforts to make our jobs a little less life threatening.

And if you wish to espouse the age-old isolationist viewpoint of "if we just sat back and left everyone alone nothing bad would ever happen to us" then you should revisit early 20th century history. It's been tried. Many times. It always fails because somebody somewhere wants to control this little blue speck in the universe for one reason or another. Nature abhors a vacuum. If a superpower doesn't actively look out for its own interests -- including actively intervening abroad in a small scale to avoid having to intervene later on a much broader scale -- it becomes subjugated to those who have no such restrictions.

Re:Business as usual

[doccus]

I'm kind of surprised the engineers, of all people, don't remember the lesson from history that an AI would hopefully learn that the only winning move is not to play.

Ummm.. surely that's the lesson from Hollywood.. History has taught us nothing, it would seem...

Re:Business as usual

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Non-violence works right up until the point where you run up against an opposing party that has no such compunction and no political/economic/military downside to exercising said violence. Then you die, or get enslaved, or any number of other unsavory, life-shortening things happen to you. And your precious moralizing, while noble and well-meaning, is removed from the gene pool. Permanently.

If you're so committed to your viewpoint that you eschew violence, why not just unlock your doors and windows, proudly post signs in your windows and yard stating you are unarmed and will offer no resistance to anyone who wishes to take your stuff, rape your wife, or kill you for fun. You won't call the police because you abhor the idea of someone else using violence to the point where you actively refuse to participate in any activity that might allow anyone to more effectively defend you and your family. See how that works out.

Humans as a whole are mostly decent but there's a significant number who have no morals, no restraint, and no empathy for you. No matter how many "good" people there are out there, the "bad" ones outnumber you and always will. If you will not take steps to defend yourself and retch at the idea of assisting others who voluntarily choose to do so then you become one and only one thing: a victim.

Re:Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? And the other half and government will write the "war enabling articles and acts" and prosecute you for not taking part in the "defense of homeland" and for "desertion".
Good to be you in times of "war declared" and justice department behind it to act as they please.

Re:Business as usual

[david_thornley]

Nope. In 1982, Argentina attacked the Falklands/Malvinas, despite the fact that Britain was a nuclear power that could wipe out most Argentinian cities quite easily. That was one war not deterred by nukes.

Re:Business as usual

[david_thornley]

If you look at all the wars since Nagasaki was bombed, they've between two non-nuclear states, or between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state.

However, being a nuclear state doesn't necessarily deter a non-nuclear state, as was the case in the Falklands War in 1982.

Re:Business as usual

[Aristos Mazer]

Do we not learn from Martin Luther King despite his being dead? Many visionaries have died as martyrs and their deaths have caused the change they sought. True, some die forgotten, but not all do. Further, saying, "I will not kill," is not the same as saying, "I will not resist." Having a good defense or even a good offense is not the same as having a lethal offense. Regarding calling the police... in the wake of the New York killing, I just last night asked whether my family should think twice about calling the police if they are more likely to shoot first than to not. How far should we go in dealing with it ourselves? It is an open topic of discussion, one that has come up more often as we are more aware of needless killing of people by cops. (I say "aware" because it has probably happened a lot more in history than we know, and the modern era is bringing the problem more into the light.) I do not know all the answers. I do believe that the more I error toward "I will not kill," the better the world will be, especially if I can encourage that belief in others.

Re:Business as usual

[david_thornley]

If there is no bombing, it really doesn't matter whether we're not doing accurate or inaccurate bombing. At that point, it's a matter of resources, not any sort of morality.

However, weapons do not suddenly appear where they needed at the outbreak of war, so we need to think, in peacetime, how prepared we should be for war.

Re:Business as usual

[david_thornley]

You don't seem all that big on personal choices in this, yourself. Are you a pacifist? Are you willing to watch your loved ones be raped, tortured, and killed rather than resort to violence? If not, then you need to have people with weapons available somewhere, so you have an indirect need for weapons. In this case, it's better to have more effective weapons rather than less effective. In particular, it's better to have weapons that can target better than weapons that can't, because ideally you'd be killing or destroying who you need killed or what you need destroyed without additional death or destruction.

Re: Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Youâ(TM)re coming from the stance that Googles AI is 100% accurate right?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai

But even if it was having machines kill people innocent or not is something that keeps a lot of people awake. And all the meantime Google still canâ(TM)t get its translate tool to work properly and the fuckin Paul brothers keep showing up in my YouTube feed when Google promised theyâ(TM)d stop with that shit so really I donâ(TM)t know.

Re: Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

When did Congress declare war on Mexico?!

Re:Business as usual

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I do believe that the more I error toward "I will not kill," the better the world will be, especially if I can encourage that belief in others.

Speaking as a former Marine and having served in war, none of us want to kill anyone. We'd always prefer to preserve life if that is an option. Unfortunately we don't always get to pick that option because the "other guy" does want to kill. Therefore, it would serve you much better if you modified your saying to "I will not kill unless it is necessary, and if it becomes necessary, I will not hesitate to do so in defense of life, liberty, or property."

Citing MLK Jr. is not a good comparison. For every one martyr like him there are tens of thousands -- perhaps millions -- who have died facelessly, pointlessly, and horribly. Most died because they wouldn't or couldn't defend themselves, because they gave up too much of their own power of defense (giving up their firearms, for example) in the name of peace or appeasement. History is paved with their corpses, all of them thinking "I won't kill because I don't want to" right up to the point where they were marched into the gas chambers by Nazi's, or shot in the back of the head by Stalinists, or burned alive by Islamic fanatics. You'd be wise to not follow their example.

Re: Business as usual

[Aristos Mazer]

Not âoeI do not want to killâ but rather âoeit is wrong to kill.â It isnâ(TM)t an undesire to get my hands dirty... the question is whether the harm done by my death (or yours) is greater than the harm of escalating violence by me (or you) killing. A criminal commits a crime. Does a cop make it better by killing? How many innocent bystanders is that justice worth? If a vigilante kills the cop, is justice served then? How much mob anger is it worth?

In the military realm, how much of ISIS/Al Queda/Taliban is result of our violence towards the Mid East? Where does the tit-for-tat stop? And how many drone strikes on wedding parties are acceptable?

I have been in places where my life was at risk. I have felt the temptation of wanting a gun. I didnâ(TM)t have one. I was able to talk my way through it. As tech advances, the options for non-lethal force increase. I think it is a viable path. I wish more people would consider it an option.

Re:Business as usual

[RockDoctor]

Considering the U.S. and Soviet Union never went to direct war against each other,

Except for when they did - in 1918.

What's that saying about the fate of those who forget history?

Re:Business as usual

[rastos1]

Today the reasons for war is not the effort to take assets and resources. Instead the reason is to help the side that shares the same ideology or some similar reason. Or that is at least what the politicians wants us to believe. But even if the reason are the assets and resources, then the point is moot considering how much assets and resources could be simply bought with the money that goes to the war machinery.

Re: Business as usual

[aleph]

Given I *know* people resigned over the Google Plus Real Names fiasco, I expect if they don't withdraw they'll start hemorrhaging employees, and it will be the more talented ones at that (that have more resources and can find other opportunities the easiest).

For all it's flaws, most people at Google actually are some brand of idealistic. Doesn't mean they're perfect, or right, or don't screw up, or understand life outside their little bubble, but I get sick of this meme of Google as some evil empire. If Google was trying to be evil, they'd be doing a much better job of it,

Re: Business as usual

[prisoner-of-enigma]

A criminal commits a crime. Does a cop make it better by killing?

If it stops the criminal from committing more crimes, yes. If it deters other would-be criminals, also yes.

If a vigilante kills the cop, is justice served then?

Why would it? Did the cop commit a crime? No. Police officers may legally use deadly force to protect their lives and the lives of others.

How much mob anger is it worth?

Mob anger is worth precisely zilch. Your equating mob anger, vigilantism, and the legal use of deadly force is a false equivalence.

In the military realm, how much of ISIS/Al Queda/Taliban is result of our violence towards the Mid East?

None. And even if it was, you're justifying the very "mob anger" and vigilantism you just decried.

Where does the tit-for-tat stop?

Gee, I dunno...perhaps when ISIS/Al Queda/Taliban stops promulgating genocide for other humans simply because they worship differently? It's not like Jews and Christians are calling for the killing of Muslims because they worship differently. We'd just kindly like it if they'd stop trying to kill the rest of us so we can all live in a 9th-century caliphate. You seem to be a "live and let live" kind of fellow. Go preach that to ISIS and see how far you get before you're beheaded, drowned, burned alive, or blown to bits with detcord tied around your neck, all while they chant "God is great!"

And how many drone strikes on wedding parties are acceptable?

None are "acceptable" but if you're suggesting it's possible to have an armed conflict without occasional collateral damage you're living in a fantasy.

I have been in places where my life was at risk. I have felt the temptation of wanting a gun. I didn't have one. I was able to talk my way through it. As tech advances, the options for non-lethal force increase. I think it is a viable path. I wish more people would consider it an option.

And if you hadn't been able to "talk your way through it" then you wouldn't be here advocating your position. You'd be dead or seriously injured. Like you I wish more people would consider non-violence as an option but you need to understand one basic concept: you have no control over what the other party will consider. So long as the other party is willing and able to use deadly force against you, your last line of defense is to exercise that same force to defend yourself. If you're unwilling to consider that option then your opponent will always win, you and your kind will eventually be removed from the gene pool, and such high-minded concepts as what you're proposing will be regarded as foolish naivete.

Update from Google

[FilmedInNoir]

Google announces a massive layoff of more than 3100 employees after it was found they said something politically incorrect or something like that... whatever.

Re:Update from Google

[Anonymous Coward]

We need more virtue signaling from them

Re:Update from Google

[sinij]

We need more virtue signaling from them

Can you please outline how you envision more virtue signaling from them without getting into outright illegal territory?

Re:Update from Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was because of a typo in the letter. What was supposed to say Don't go live on this project became Don't be evil and I could have sworn I wrote "go" in that little post-it note. I wonder how...never mind *facepalm*

Re:Update from Google

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot more virtue-signalling on the inside. It's both maddening as well as boringly predictable.

Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

They apparently have no problem with their employer providing anonymized telephone service to illegal telemarketers.

Re:Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Different kind of evil. I bet the DNC uses the same telemarketing , that makes it ok.

Tell 'em only white males will be targeted

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell those Google employees only white, heterosexual, Christian males will be targeted.

They'll pull the trigger themselves.

Re:Tell 'em only white males will be targeted

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Butt-hurt YOU aren't paid 300-500k to be a top engineer at a top company?

Re:Tell 'em only white males will be targeted

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Butt-hurt YOU aren't paid 300-500k to be a top engineer at a top company?

Actually, I am.

I therefore get a ring-side seat and get to see the "affirmative actiion"/lower standards used to create "diversity".

Of course, it's career suicide to point out that using different standards because of someone's skin color is racist, and different standards because of someone's sex is sexist.

Just repeat after me, and you'll get along fine: IT'S WHITEY'S FAULT!!!!

Yep - when blacks use handguns to kill blacks in inner cities where guns are already illegal, it's all WHITEY'S FAULT and we need to ban AR15s from rural whites. Or when the FBI ignores 83 fucking complaints saying someone's going to shoot up a school, because Obama said you can't lock crazy kids up....

Re:Tell 'em only white males will be targeted

[Anonymous Coward]

AC bringing the whine. Bless your heart.

comes naturally

[micahraleigh]

"comes naturally to a company whose motto is "Don't be evil,""

Naturally ... the military is evil.

You don't have to really make that interpretation on your own.

See we have these helpful smart people to tell us how to form opinions.

In addition to figuring out how to search web pages what else would any engineer naturally learn really good?

The military does evil things.

Of course !!

Please don't bother disagreeing with this. We are all very mentally exhausted from all the smart things we do all the time. Rubix cube pagaentry and all that takes its toll, so don't be an insensitive clod.

For some reason this story made me think of this:

[powerlord]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Writi...

(worth a short read and funny as heck)

Here's an idea...

[bobbied]

(Just sayin..) If you don't like what the company you work for does, it might be time to find a new place to work... Just tell HR on your way out the door why you are leaving. Trust me, it will have a bigger impact than this PR campaign to shame your employer into refusing business that you don't personally like, with the added bonus that it won't run the risk of getting you branded a troublemaker or having to get fired. It's never a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Senior engineers have serious weight at a company like Google. If they all leave, Google isn't a top engineering firm anymore because it doesn't have top engineers.

Thats why they are paid like 300-500k a year.

Re:Here's an idea...

[RightwingNutjob]

You're assuming that all the people in that paygrade are peacenik SJWs who have no qualms spitting on the idea of having a military all while working to build their own little Oceania. People like that are vocal, but they are a minority view, even within Big Tech. There are other 300k-500k people who don't have any such qualms that will take their place. And if the SJWs depart en masse, they'd be more inclined to work at a place like Google.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, most of the people who are competent enough for that sort of work are at least left leaning. My company has taken a sharp turn to the left simply because conservatives/libertarians have been unable to pass the basic logic test for a decade.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quitting would be a reasonable third step, but it's pretty stupid to quit as a first step. First complain, then petition, then quit. If an employee quits first, then they're not giving management a chance to respond/react and improve the situation.

Also, if all the people opposed to the project quit, then no one at Google will be opposed to the project and it will continue. Quitting first just gives the company a clear path to keep doing what they are doing.

When something like this comes up it is important to try to fix it from within first. If that fails, then quit on principle.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, nah, brah. I work with these folk and I am one. Universally left leaning, or at best ambivalent. Due to a lot of education.

Your also forgetting that US folk don't make up the majority of top engineers. The US is right leaning compared with the rest of the civilized globe. The folk from the EU/Asia/Australia/Canada etc ARE NOT right wing, even if they were in the home country it translates into "centre" for the US.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Source?

Re:Here's an idea...

[RightwingNutjob]

Get out of the bubble dude. US folk do make up nearly 100% of the engineers in the aerospace and defense industry because most of that work requires citizens either by the ITAR Act or by virtue of working on a contract for the DoD. They aren't all universally left-leaning. I am one and have plenty of education and have plenty of colleagues who have even more education and also aren't universally left-leaning. Wouldn't work at Google or Facebook no matter how much they paid if there are 3100 people there willing to spit on the US because they don't view it as a home worth defending.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it's condescending bullshit like that which helped Trump win, right? What's funny is, simply by stating something so incredibly idiotic demonstrates that you lack all of those qualities you claim the left has. I desperately hope you're either a conservative or libertarian.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at how left leaning (and international) the top tech companies are, they are filled with affinity groups donate to left causes etc. Bernie Sanders cam to Amazon headquaters, it was a really big deal for example. When you get a job in Google, first question is "where in the world would you like to work?". They are big global companies and hence reflect the far more left global world view compared with the increasingly right wing and increasingly isolated US.

Have you ever set foot in a top tech company?

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are obviously a right wing nutjob. Oh, wait...

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for Google's motto was to attract those people. It was a recruiting strategy designed to attract top talent that would normally go to the military establishment. They are not an insignificant minority in Google's development groups. If they left en masse, it would cripple the company.

Also, there are not 300k people in this country who would qualify to work at Google as an engineer, much less in AI at Google. There are probably less than 100k real AI engineers in the entire country.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of defense industry". Yeah, the US DOES have a hugely bloated defense industry. Recruiting for a top tier tech company is easy pickings on the US defense industry, the pay is so low compared with a top tier tech company. I can offer $150k and often the job they leave is $70-80k. They relocate west so damn fast....

Aerospace is most certainly not US only. Ever heard of Dassult/Airbus? And we are talking software here, not hardware. All the major innovations are software, AI based. This is where US defense is going to have major issues.

Just because a bunch of smart folk DON'T want to work in defense doesn't mean they are not patriotic. They are, often deeply patriotic. I'm a foreigner, migrated, and I have a deep understanding of what made America great (hint: not the military, it was science and society). We have major issues with blowing people up, it's a poor way to "be safe". Much better to form a economic union and push your agenda that way, peacefully, where there is plenty of money to be made and no deaths. This is why China/EU will take the lead. Sure, they also have a big military, but it's rarely used and for the most part they get the way through economic means.

Re:Here's an idea...

[RightwingNutjob]

Salaries measured in dollars, not talent measured in headcount.

Re:Here's an idea...

[guruevi]

Pay me 500k a year and I don't care if you help out the government. It's why you get paid the 500k, to focus on the job and not partisan political issues. If you pay taxes, you helped fund the Pentagon AI project more than being a part of Google's workforce.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

and thats why the best and brightest go to private companies and not gov't.

Re:Here's an idea...

[RightwingNutjob]

80k jobs in the defense industry are not top talent. Sure, you have to pay them 150 for it to be worth it to live in SF, but if you hire them in Pittsburgh, you'd still only be paying them 80k. Fun fact: if Dassault or Airbus sets up shop in the US, they still have to hire American citizens to do anything having to do with flight software. If they want to import a bunch of H1Bs to do the job, they're in for a hell of a time getting Department of Commerce and Department of State approvals for disclosing technology to foreign nationals. Quite a bit of a headache to go through for someone who's only here for 3 years at a time.

Re:Here's an idea...

[RightwingNutjob]

And if the media weren't full of stories about those "best and brightest" eating condensed vitamin mix and sexually identifying as inanimate objects, I might believe that to be universally true.

Re:Here's an idea...

[thegarbz]

If you don't like what the company you work for does, it might be time to find a new place to work...

Are you kidding? That takes effort. I'd much rather just sign a piece of paper that someone else wrote.

Re:Here's an idea...

[bobbied]

If you don't like what the company you work for does, it might be time to find a new place to work...

Are you kidding? That takes effort. I'd much rather just sign a piece of paper that someone else wrote.

Sure, I would too... But I'm going to insist that this paper is a good check made out to me before I sign and cash it.

I'm certainly NOT going to create a negative PR campaign with my current employer as its target... Mainly because those pay checks would likely stop (and I do like to feed my family). ALSO if you worked for my company and did this, you'd be escorted from the premises with your personal items and the promise that your last paycheck will be in the mail and a note in your file that says you would not be eligible for rehiring for violating company policy about such things.

Re:Here's an idea...

[jwhyche]

You know it's condescending bullshit like that which helped Trump win, right?

Yup, and it's a damn good thing he did.

Re:Here's an idea...

[HiThere]

Well, he said "...my company...", so asking for the source sounds like you didn't actually read his post.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never bite the hand that feeds you? What a good boy you are!

Re:Here's an idea...

[thegarbz]

Yeah I know, I was just being facetious. The point is I'm willing to bet that the 3100 people don't actually give a damn. Or maybe 3099 of them don't, one of them actually bothered to write it, so they care.

Re: Here's an idea...

[kenh]

Except they won't resign. The reason they signed the letter is to take the place of them actually resigning.

They arrogantly simultaneously believe that Google can't function without them and that only Google can do the work requested by the military, therefore if they can prevent goog or from doing the work they can save the world from more accurate bombs AND keep their six-figure paychevks, win-win!

Re:Here's an idea...

[bobbied]

No, not good, just self serving.

Bad mouthing your employer in public is risky business that often leads to unemployment. I prefer being able to pay my bills and feed my family over taking out my grievances with my employer. I've worked in some pretty appalling conditions over the last 25 years so my family could eat and have a place to live while I searched for another place of employment. I've also had to quit places on principle too.

IF you think your principles on some issue are incompatible with your employer's, then I suggest you change jobs in such a way as to preserve your earning potential as much as possible. But, if you are young, single and foolish, feel free to sacrifice your future earning potential by raising a stink. But remember that unemployment doesn't cover quitting or firings for cause and welfare is but a pittance. If your "principle" outweighs that risk then I'd suggest you QUIT over signing some petition that gives your employer a PR black eye.

Too late...

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

They gave up on the whole "don't be evil" schtick a long time ago...

Re:Too late...

[RhettLivingston]

Alphabet did. Google did not. It is still the first sentence in Google's Code of Conduct. This action was directed to Google's CEO, not Alphabet's.

Re:Too late...

[RhettLivingston]

As stated in that article, Google's parent company Alphabet did not take up the motto. People read far too much into the article. Google is still a company, and it is still their motto stated prominently in today's Google Code of Conduct.

Re:Too late...

[david_thornley]

I thought they kept two-thirds of it.

Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

Googles mantra:
"Don't be evil, unless it's profitable"

Re:Motto

[supremebob]

Unless is profitable, OR something that people in Red states enjoy doing like shooting guns or calling someone that looks like a woman a woman. Then it's OK to drop the ban hammer on them.

And one more thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

So get another job if you don't like it. That's what I have to do. Protest letter? Ha! I'd be fired on the spot. Isn't America wonderful?

California used to have a massive defence industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it will again, in another guise...

Re:Why do Google Employees want the Russians to Wi

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the fact it's completely the *wrong* type of AI to build? Blowing shit up is so American and so old... The way you win these days is build an AI that just floods your enemies with fake news, depressing fake news and plays on the fractures naturally in society. Your enemies will blow themselves up!

Wait.... that already happened didn't it?

Re:Why do Google Employees want the Russians to Wi

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is so far up Putin's ass that any technology developed for the Pentagon will end up in Russia's hands anyway. The only way to keep this technology from the Russians is to refuse to develop it in the first place.

Do as I do, not as I code.

[Anonymous Coward]

So now all we need is a mass letter from open-sourcers complaining about the military using their code.

Re:Do as I do, not as I code.

[HiThere]

We've had various licenses that did that. But they never became part of the GPL or BSD licenses. IIRC, one license said you couldn't use the code on anything connected to nuclear devices. I think that one came from MicroSoft, though, so it was hardly open source.

Personally, I generally prefer Free Software over Open Source, though you could call Free Software a subset of Open Source.

Not very patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they forgotten how important US companies were during the Cold War? Is Google not an American company? Therefore, they're either WITH us, or against us. Fall in, or fallout.

Re:Not very patriotic

[Chronus1326]

Agree

Re:Not very patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know this isn't going exactly as planned considering the majority of their work force is not from the US? They certainly aren't the first. NASA, Intel, IBM, thousands of businesses being bled to offshore countries along with their IP. _Any_ nationalism is taken as racist, bigotry, .

They signed their own contract with the devil and think it was negotiable. That is hilarious. Should have read the TOS.

Re:Not very patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is part of the US Governent.
IBM has International in its name (hint: it is the I)
Can't find your point.

WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is be

[raymorris]

That's a good point, to be balanced against the initial gut-reaction of not wanting your technology to be used militarily. Until fairly recently, war was waged by destroying the enemy *country*. Now we target individuals and small groups. We can do that now because we have accurate targeting.

In world war 2, only 20% of bombs hit within 1,000 feet of the target. Most hit within a mile radius, so the real target was something like "the west side of the city". By the gulf war, target radius was 10 meters, 30 feet. We could bomb a vehicle instead of a neighborhood.

If you are against war, it is clearly better to destroy a given vehicle than an entire neighborhood. Therefore more accurate targeting is better, it reduces deaths and injuries.

A good thing

[farble1670]

uses artificial intelligence to interpret video imagery and could be used to improve the targeting of drone strikes

Isn't improved targeting a good thing? Like, kill the bad guys not civilians?

Re:A good thing

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Isn't improved targeting a good thing? Like, kill the bad guys not civilians?

You forget a fundamental SJW concept: there is no such thing as a "bad" person. They're just "misunderstood" or "underprivileged" or "oppressed" and everyone could live in harmony if we'd only give them everything they ever want. Nevermind that what they want -- say, the genocide of all Jews -- is in direct opposition to the idea those people want to stay alive. That requires deep thinking and SJW's don't want to engage in such things.

Re:A good thing

[david_thornley]

All people are precious, and it would be great if we could reason with all of them and live peacefully together. However, this is the real world, and sometimes we have to kill people. Given this necessity, I'd rather have effective weapons, and particularly weapons that are better able to kill the folks we need to kill and as few others as possible.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has become EXTREMELY abusive, in some areas.

By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent government in the world. The US Has Military Bases in 80 Countries. All of Them Must Close.

Most violent? Are you kinding me? Without US policing around the world, other countries will have much more wars with each other. You can dislike US superpower, but you can't deny that the superpower bring peace to the world.

Killing is evil.

[Comboman]

A targeting system for weapons is intended to kill people. Killing people is inherently evil, even if it may occasionally be necessary as "the lesser of two evils". This is not a partisan issue; it should be blindingly obvious to anyone with a moral compass.

Re:Killing is evil.

[alvinrod]

Murder is inherently evil, but killing isn't. Otherwise you could extend the same logic to conclude the jailing people indefinitely is inherently evil as well. There are some terrible people in the world intent on terrible actions. Killing them (or imprisoning them for the remainder of their days) results in a net reduction in the amount of suffering and evil in the world.

Right now the tools that we have at our disposal not only kill the intended target, but typically a few other people who may not need killing or are perhaps completely innocent such that no one could claim that they deserve any rebuke, let alone death. Unfortunately that collateral damage doesn't do enough to outweight the benefit from killing those who need to be killed. Improving our tools would allow us to spare those innocents from an unfortunate fate. One could just as well argue that refusing to make a better tool that would reduce collateral damage is morally evil.

Perhaps in the future we'll have even better tools and it won't be necessary to kill anyone at all, but that does us little good in the here and now, and we're unlikely to make an immediate leap to that point without the same kind of gradual and incremental improvement that drives humanity forward.

Re:Killing is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing people is inherently evil

That's the stupidest statement here.

Re:Killing is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the entire basis of the argument.

Re:Killing is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil is inherently a religious argument. If we examine the Christian point of view, it is easily shown that killing is not always "evil".

Christians believe that God can never commit evil. They also believe He is omniscient. To be infinitely knowing, you must know about everything past, present or future at all times. It is thus impossible to make a mistake or change your mind. This is why a Christian cannot believe that right and wrong changes at any point in the biblical account. All must be interpreted with this in mind.

In the great flood, God slaughtered all but one family. This cannot be evil because God is not evil.

Later, God actually punished the Israelites severely for not following His command to kill every man, woman, and child occupying their land. His commands cannot be evil. That command demonstrated that it is not evil to commit genocide in order to prevent a poisoning of His people with the thoughts of others. In fact, He apparently considered it evil not to do so.

Much of the confusion seems to center on the common mistranslation of the commandment "Thou shall not murder". There is a huge difference in a murder and a righteous killing.

Now, among Christians at least, it is up for debate as to whether the commands given to the American military are for righteous killings. But, there is no room for Christian debate over whether "killing is inherently evil". It clearly is not and those Christians that claim that it is need to reconcile their opinion across the whole bible in a way that does not imply that God can change His mind. Christian hope rests on God not being able to change His mind.

Re:Killing is evil.

[Stephan Schulz]

Christians believe that God can never commit evil.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

Re:Killing is evil.

[ceoyoyo]

"Otherwise you could extend the same logic to conclude the jailing people indefinitely is inherently evil as well."

It is. Sometimes it may be necessary as "the lesser of two evils" as the GP pointed out. It's something you might do if there's no other option.

Even then, countries with modern justice systems have found that in the vast majority of cases it's better to rehabilitate prisoners.

Re: Killing is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few major points that you have missed. The first being God's authority. God created all things and thus has the authority to do whatever He wants with his creation. In fact, after the fall of man, He basically said that He will kill everyone. Even more, He will condemn them to eternal damnation. Nothing evil about it, because we are His creation.
Second point, you reference the Old Testament where God has chosen the Jewish people to carry out his message. This is before God sent His son and would give commands directly, which is no longer the case. Since Good has the authority, He could command His people to kill and it would not be evil. God's commandment against murder is about a person killing another without His authority because we do not possess that authority.
After Christ came and completed God's work, God no longer needs a group of people to do His work. Anyone who says they are killing for God now is wrong. God reserves the right to judge us from now and until Jesus returns to execute that promise. The only way to escape that judgement is to either be perfect, which is impossible, or to have Jesus interceed on your behalf.

Re: Killing is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe you are accounting for the full scope of omniscience and omnipotence - especially the question of time. Time is just a dimension of His creation. It is not part of His reality. He doesn't just forecast the future, He knows it because it is already done from His perspective.

This has a lot of implications that must remain mysterious to us for now. Why did Jesus ("the word") create our universe knowing that we would fall almost immediately and that He would have to manifest in the reality he created and suffer to pay for our sins? That, to me, is one of the greatest examples of His love.

Right is right all of the time. All was known before or, more accurately, outside of creation. During the old testament, those few that were saved were saved because they knew Christ and excepted Him as their savior. All of the knowledge was there for those who could hear (poor word for accepting what some deep internal part of us knows). Nobody ever achieved salvation by following the law and that was exactly the purpose of the law - to demonstrate the need for Christ's sacrifice. It was wholly successful in His purpose for it and still is.

Many, if not most pre-Christians, today still attempt to follow those laws. They still serve their purpose of pointing the way to the need for Christ. If anyone were to actually succeed, the contract would most certainly still be honored.

The statement of our release from the law is also as it always was. We weren't released at a point in time. His death released us if we accepted His sacrifice whether before that point in our time frame or after. Following the law was always hopeless as a means of salvation. Jesus' release of us from the law was just a statement of a fact that had always been true. Yes, there was a point in our time where it was more physically revealed, but it was always within our reach if we simply opened our hearts.

But, release from the law does not mean that obedience to it was "wrong" or that the laws were wrong. They are simply not a part of the path to salvation. Only an omniscient being has all of the information necessary to perfectly follow them and only an omnipotent being has the ability to contain and process all information from all time as a single whole to perfectly follow them.

Re: Killing is evil.

[kenh]

Like norway, where a mass murderer gets 15 years for killing dozens of children at a summer camp?

Re: Killing is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like norway, where a mass murderer gets 15 years for killing dozens of children at a summer camp?

and? your point? How many years are appropriate?

Our justice system does not need to mimic our base desires for revenge and punishment. Rather, it should be set up to prevent bad things from occurring. If the murderer is definitely not likely to do it again after rehab, what is the point in locking him up further?

Re:Killing is evil.

[micahraleigh]

Respectful disagreement:

"it should be blindingly obvious"

That ... is much worse IMHO.

To the point where I think maybe this guy is pulling our leg and having a good laugh.

If so, well played, sir! I tip my glass at you, Comboman!

Re: Killing is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo mean the Norwegian prison...
The comfortable cell with television, internet, soft couches and so on for the the norwegian inmates like Breivik?

Re: Killing is evil.

[ceoyoyo]

Assuming you're talking about the 2011 attack, the perpetrator was sentenced to 21 years, at the end of which his sentence could be extended by five years at a time, indefinitely, until he is determined to no longer be dangerous.

What do you think the purpose of imprisonment is? Research shows that beyond a point, harsher sentences (including the death penalty) don't really serve as much of a deterrent. The "mass murderer only got X years" expresses a desire for vengeance, which is natural, but not particularly useful: it might make some people feel better for a short period of time, but doesn't really contribute much else, and has some serious downsides. Justice systems focused on harm prevention and rehabilitation have proven to be the most effective, and in such a system the sentence the 2011 killer got makes a lot of sense.

Norway has a low crime rate, consistently ranks among the best places in the world to live, has a relatively small rate of incarceration and massacres like the one you mentioned are very rare. It seems they're doing something right.

Re:Killing is evil.

[micahraleigh]

The moral aspect is the golden rule.

I'm not going to murder people because I don't want to be murdered.

If you catch me trying to kill you even though you're not doing anything wrong, sure go ahead and kill me.

The law approximates the golden rule like this: we don't really think you're ok with getting murdered so we're going to enforce that nobody goes around murdering.

I'm also a Christian, but the subjective / civil aspects of morality in the law shouldn't be overlooked either.

The die hard Christians and deists who founded the country found a lot of common ground here.

Re:Killing is evil.

[micahraleigh]

A bigger problem is the incoherence of saying murder can be inherently evil AND necessary at the same time.

That is trying to talk out both sides of your mouth.

I prefer not to hear the sound of someone else's mouth slopping their food together.

Re:Killing is evil.

[ceoyoyo]

Homer thinks you've been damaged by poor educational opportunities. And no, that's not Homer Simpson.

Re: Killing is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like norway, where a mass murderer gets 15 years for killing dozens of children at a summer camp?

Breivik will most likely be jailed forever. Even countries where the goal is to rehabilitate the prisoners rather than to seek revenge recognize that some cannot reasonably be rehabilitated and have provisions for the continued imprisonment of such individuals who would constitute a danger to society if they were ever released.

Re:Killing is evil.

[micahraleigh]

"It is always the right time to do the right thing"
MLK Jr

Sounds like you've been educated in the school of compromise and mediocrity.

Next story - 3100 H1 Visas pulled at Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously snowflakes, it's a company not a democracy LOL. You're all replaceable thanks to your own damn technologies.

You won't be missed.

Re: Next story - 3100 H1 Visas pulled at Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn veterans thinking they have rights. You gave those up when you agreed to be shot at. You donâ(TM)t get them back because you served your time.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Anonymous Coward]

That article could have made some great points if it backed up any of its assertions with facts and data, and avoided terms like "white patriarchy" as its scapegoat.

WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is former senior CIA officer Michael Scheuer explaining the concept of "blowback."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

The U.S. government's interventionist foreign policy has sparked countless wars and inspired nearly every major Islamic terrorist movement in modern history. The military is the most expensive, destructive big government program of all. If you value peace and safety, BRING THE TROOPS HOME.

In an unusual turn of events...

[rraylion]

It turns out that helping to secure your own borders is the best policy any sovereign power should ensure with the help of it's peoples. After the Russian evasion of southern California, Google employees were upset at their governments inability to retaliate. It turns out that sense missile strikes were deemed to inaccurate and civilian losses deemed to high only a minimal resistance could be mustered in the short time frame of the hostile action. Ironically when Google was asked 5 years ago to help improve missile accuracy they declined to help THEIR OWN COUNTRY DEFEND ITSELF.

Incredible

[The Snazster]

So if the the motto is "Don't be evil," and helping America's military is against the motto, then the military is evil and, by extension, especially since it is an all volunteer force, everyone in the military is evil? Is this really what these disgruntled employees want to be telling everyone (including their boss?) I'm a shareholder of Google and I disapprove of these lackawit employees. How many folks we got lined up who want their jobs?

Re: Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. This person gets it. The whole military is evil. You forgot about veterans. Those snowflakes think they deserve privlages, like handicap parking and post employment healthcare because they once did their job.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a shareholder as well, very likely with more shares than you, and I fully approve of their actions. Your logic is seriously flawed in your breakdown of "evil", but it's typically no use pointing that out until you attempt to use it and fall flat on your face. Obviously not everyone involved in the military is "evil", but the lower rungs of the ladder are typically tricked into believing they are "fighting for freedom" or some jingoistic BS like that. Quite a few leave the military knowing that they were essentially jackboots for capitalists, and end up quite pissed about it.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

They signed a document saying that their home is not worth defending.

I am dumbfounded how anyone would think that. I am even more dumbfounded how anyone in the US would say that.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sort of a chicken or the egg problem. I live close enough to work there and they call me every few months, but I'd never work there until they purge/ban the SJW and racist shit and replace Sundar, which I don't think is likely to happen. They have made themselves an unattractive place to work. Much more interesting and lucrative opportunities are easy to find that don't come with all that baggage.

You have a mental illness

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a legitimate health warning. You are suffering from delusion and need clinical, medical treatment.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

That's not their motto any more

[Anonymous Coward]

They dropped "don't be evil" as their motto years ago.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Tokolosh]

Where in the Constitution does it allow the USA government to be the world police?

Congress has not the guts to issue a declaration of war since Pearl Harbor.

All three branches of government have abdicated their responsibility to oversee a military-industrial complex run amuck.

What next? Sending troops and predators to the Mexican border?

Globalism is as globalism does

[RightwingNutjob]

Don't forget why it is that you're able to have the cushy jobs and the confidence to stick your necks out like that, snowflakes. That security comes from the barrel of a gun pointed at your country's enemies. That's why we have governments and why we have militaries: to defend your rights and freedoms against people who might want to take them from you. Living in a Potemkin techno-utopia you might forget that, but it's still true even if you don't realize it. This sort of thing isn't a good look. Makes you all look like children.

Re:Globalism is as globalism does

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes you all look like children.

That's what many of them are. Grown up adult children. If I were in charge at Google I would fire everyone who signed that petition immediately. Many of them would come crawling back and begging on their hands and knees to return in less than three months at which point I would hire back the best of them at 50% of their former salaries. There's nothing like an extended period of unemployment to focus one's attention on what's important in life. These molly coddled Google engineers need to learn that lesson and they can call the pay cut a "tuition fee".

Re:Globalism is as globalism does

[houghi]

Jack Nicholson (as Col. Nathan R. Jessep)

    Jessep: You canâ(TM)t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiagoâ(TM)s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You donâ(TM)t want the truth because deep down in places you donâ(TM)t talk about at parties you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said âthank youâ(TM) and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I donâ(TM)t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
    Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
    Jessep: I did the job that â"
    Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
    Jessep: Youâ(TM)re goddamn right I did!

Re:Globalism is as globalism does

[Thelasko]

Makes you all look like children.

You make some valid points. However, calling people "snowflakes" makes you look pretty childish yourself. Otherwise, thank you for your comments.

Re:Globalism is as globalism does

[Anonymous Coward]

You really need to get a clue, bucko. We use the barrel of a gun not to protect our freedom, but take it away from others. We are the destroyers of democracy, devastators of entire countries - and it has absolutely nothing to do with national security.

Skynet anyone??

[laurencetux]

I mean really have any of the brass hats seen any of those movies/series??

besides its never a good idea to build your replacement before you have an Exit Plan

Re:Skynet anyone??

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully not. Movies are fantasies. Something that a frighteningly large number of people have the ability to differentiate from reality.

Re: WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyo

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolute nonsense. The biggest terrorist organizations are Sunni and Shiâ(TM)a, and theyâ(TM)ve been committing terrorist acts against each other for a thousand years before the United States was created.

on the bright side...

[slew]

If google were to stop working on all these projects for the feds, they'd be less subject to the equal employment opportunity record-keeping spotlight they are currently under.

<tinfoil>By giving up some small federal contract, they get to keep discriminating? Genius!</tinfoil>

Re:Why do Google Employees want the Russians to Wi

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait.... that already happened didn't it?

It was a close shave, but Hillary lost. Catastrophe avoided.

Oh The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

DARPA creates the communication platform that Google exploits to their own great benefit, and then its employees tell it to not be in the business of war. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re:Oh The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

DARPA (and NSA-deep state) probably OWNS the google.
What is Googles real beginning? Who were the people who gave the first money, "coding" and influence to "build" a global "snooping" company?
A company that gets peoples, institutions, and governments e-mail and files to his "private servers" (gmail and dropbox)?
A company that KNOWS what you are doing (real time), who are your friends and what you are listening and watching?

And the SJW parade marches on

[argStyopa]

As a conservative, I have to admit I pretty much poo-pooh'd the Left's paranoia being victimized by big data and government; TBTH I assumed it would probably end up being my side that was going to be doing any of the oppressive stuff so I was probably ok.

But how the tables have turned: now the Leftists at Google have made me actually start to get nervous about how they're going to use my data - my searches, my friends, the things I think are important - against me "for my own good" of course.

I watch Demolition Ranch and occasionally watch gun reviews on Youtube. Has google accumulated a "crazy ass gun fanatic" file on me, and thus decided to single me out for special watching, filtering what I'm going to get from searches or even Cambridge Analytica-style aggressive, 'therapeutic' propaganda to "correct" my clearly aberrant leanings?

Thanks google, for making me think like the paranoid nutballs I generally mock.

Re:And the SJW parade marches on

[neo-mkrey]

Congratulations! You sound like a paranoid nutball.

Re:And the SJW parade marches on

[Anonymous Coward]

As a fellow conservative, I think your thought process depicts a complete piece of shit.

You better hope I'm on your side in the end, as a "paranoid nutball", I can create AI, even war making AI. You'll need me.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm...... I have some bad news for you....

Re: For some reason this story made me think of th

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks!

But mass surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnâ(TM)t evil...

But But

[Mes]

But you're not supporting the troops if you dont unquestionably support endless war and the military industrial complex!

Re:But But

[Anonymous Coward]

But you're not supporting the troops if you dont unquestionably support endless war and the military industrial complex!

The pathetic irony is endless war and the military industrial complex helped fund and build the very internet that Google lives and breathes by. Go figure the stupid and ignorant youth at Google conveniently overlook this fact...

Re:But But

[jimbolauski]

When the drone fires its missile do you want it to have a 5% chance of hitting civilians or 1% chance. Once you realize you don't get to decide if the missile is fired you will realize spending money to ensure fewer civilian casualties makes sense.

Re:But But

[Anonymous Coward]

are we also supposed to thank the first proteins that created life billions of years ago too? Go figure the stupid and ignorant humanity that conveniently overlook this fact...

Don't be evil

[Anonymous Coward]

..."Don't be evil," a phrase invoked in the protest letter. But it is distinctly foreign to Washington's massive defense industry and certainly to the Pentagon, where the defense secretary, Jim Mattis, has often said a central goal is to increase the "lethality" of the United States military."

Are you suggesting in order to abstain from "being evil" the Washington defense industry should brake international law by decreasing the "lethality" of weapons systems so they maim and injure rather than kill? Or are you suggesting we just shouldn't have a defense industry because defending yourself is "evil"?

Re:WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyon

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is former senior CIA officer Michael Scheuer explaining the concept of "blowback."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

The U.S. government's interventionist foreign policy has sparked countless wars and inspired nearly every major Islamic terrorist movement in modern history. The military is the most expensive, destructive big government program of all. If you value peace and safety, BRING THE TROOPS HOME.

Bullshit. Here's a tip for you; next time you want to blame the US Military for "interventionist" influence, try not to pick religions that have been fighting each other for hundreds of years prior to their fucking existence. Islam has been engaged in pointless warmongering and violence well before the US was ever involved, and they will likely find reason well after we bring the troops "back home".

And a "former" CIA officer is still a "former" employee of the very organization we're discussing. Needless to say, his bullshit rhetoric is taken with a grain of salt.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you bone up on the Monroe Doctrine.

but you're already doing it

[Anonymous Coward]

"We believe that Google should not be in the business of war,"

Then can you please exit the psychological / information wars?

That is not true

[RhettLivingston]

Your reference starts off with the statement '"Don't be evil" is the motto of Google's corporate code of conduct. You've gotten confused by the media.

Google still exists as a subsidiary of Alphabet. Both have a "Code of Conduct" publicly published in their investor relations site.

Alphabet's Code of Conduct uses the phrase "do the right thing" in the lede. It is not in quotes to suggest that it should be their motto, but the media has written about it as such and, incorrectly, called it a change in Google's motto. Assuming it is a motto, it is Alphabet's motto.

Google is still an entity and still has its own Code of Conduct. The first sentence in that code of conduct is still “Don’t be evil.” It is also in quotes to suggest that it is a motto.

If Google doesn't do it

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google doesn't do it, Baidu or (insert russian AI firm) will. And they won't be sharing their tech with uncle Sam.

Re: WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than any

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh. The question is, what exasperates it and draws that violence into the west?

Blowback.

The CIA has known about blowback for decades. It's an acknowledged fact in the intelligence community. But the general officer corps in the DOD still pushes these crap wars, leading to escalating violence and an unwinnable quagmire.

The U.S. government takes a problem like radical Islam and makes it 1,000x worse.

Re: WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyo

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly know nothing about foreign affairs. Look up Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), as well as the work of Chalmers Johnson and Robert Pape.

The military is the biggest of all big government programs. Nothing wastes more money than the military, not to mention the human cost.

It is impossible to claim to be for "limited government" and simultaneously be an imperial warmonger.

As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state."

Don't be evil

[Anonymous Coward]

They changed that motto years ago. Now it's

"Do the right thing"

or something along those lines. We all know what that means, right?

Stop with "don't be evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

They removed that shit a long time ago... stop perpetuating the idea it is still their motto.

Duh, so is pooping, and eating

[raymorris]

>War is not inevitable. Most wars are deliberately caused and/or fueled by people with something to gain.

Meals are deliberately caused by people who have something to gain (they are hungry). Inevitably, people will continue to eat. Chanting or putting your head in the sand won't change that.

I'm about to go to the restroom, because I'm uncomfortable right now. I have something to gain from heading to the restroom. Pooping is inevitable; people will keep doing it.

The difference between war and pooping is that when one guy, maybe Hirohito or Kim Jong-un, decides they have something to gain from starting or risking war, that brings multiple nations to war. Emperors and dictators will continue to eat, poop, and start wars whenever they think they want to. The only way to make that stop happening, to make that NOT inevitable, is to kill them. Which is called war. Wars will continue as long as nations exist.

Re: Duh, so is pooping, and eating

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked out well for us! Long live the Queen!

Re:Duh, so is pooping, and eating

[drinkypoo]

The difference between war and pooping is that when one guy, maybe Hirohito or Kim Jong-un, decides they have something to gain from starting or risking war, that brings multiple nations to war.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. These people have something economic to gain. Almost without exception, wars have economic reasons for existing. Even if someone doesn't deliberately initiate them specifically for the purposes of generating profit, they are almost always caused by some kind of economic imbalance.

However, wars cannot actually even happen without those who currently profit from them. For example, the world's largest arms dealers when measured by profit are not corporations, but governments. The USA, in particular, is the world's largest arms dealer. We have sold more total dollars in war machines than any other nation on this earth. (Currency units aside.) Our government knew that a private individual was selling fuel to the S.S. and did nothing to stop it, seizing the profits after the war instead. Mitsubishi's Zeroes were made out of Alcoa aluminum. We literally knowingly fueled the Third Reich, and helped build the axis.

Wars will continue as long as nations exist.

Probably true. I guess I support one world government after all. Now, how do we get one of those without it being fascist?

Re:Duh, so is pooping, and eating

[raymorris]

>> Wars will continue as long as nations exist.
> Probably true. I guess I support one world government after all.

Large countries almost invariably have civil wars. There larger the government, the bigger the stakes. People will always have different desires, which leads to power struggles. Power struggles writ large are war.

Perhaps the ideal, the scenario with the least amount of war (given the realities of human nature), is to have separate, autonomous areas where people can pretty much do their own thing, with one clearly dominant power who is able to put a stop to aggressors, but that isn't imperialistic. That wouldn't mean *no* war, but it would probably be less than any other realistic scenario I can imagine.

> Now, how do we get one of those without it being fascist?

Good question. Given large groups would want the opposite of what those in power are doing, the ones in power would probably have to be ruthless in order to maintain power. In a small group, such as a family, discussion and compromise is relatively easy. Discussion and compromise between Israel and ISIS? Probably not. Between all the nations of the USSR, or the historical British Empire? Nope.

Speaking of discussion and compromise being easier in smaller groups, perhaps the super-power in the above scenario should be composed of smaller divisions which can be relatively autonomous in matters that don't directly affect the other members. In matters of foreign policy they would be united, but each could separately decide of they want to legalize marijuana or that type of thing. The trick would be keeping the union government focused on its limited purposes of foreign affairs, facilitating trade trade between the members with appropriate regulation, etc. Some would be strongly tempted to inappropriately use the union government to control the internal affairs of the members, to force their way of doing things on people from other places, with different values and beliefs. To keep that control, the central government would then have to become more and more powerful, more ruthless and controlling. For this system to work, the central government would need to focus on the common defense and maybe a few other agreed things that benefit all the members, while allowing each member area it's own self-government.

Re:Duh, so is pooping, and eating

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. These people have something economic to gain. Almost without exception, wars have economic reasons for existing. Even if someone doesn't deliberately initiate them specifically for the purposes of generating profit, they are almost always caused by some kind of economic imbalance.

I believe you misunderstood of the war decision and the consequence. Most wars are inevitable, but that doesn't mean they are for those to be gained. The wars themselves were not for the gain, but some people (as we humans) will eventually exploit the war for their own gain as a result. You can't and shouldn't conflate the consequence as the decision.

Because we have no enemies!

[mi]

"We believe that Google should not be in the business of war,"

Because we have no enemies — only friends, whose grievances we've failed to address so far. Let's elect another Obama to make the entire world love us once again.

uses artificial intelligence to interpret video imagery and could be used to improve the targeting of drone strikes

Precise weapon is a human weapon.

Too much peace

[Tailhook]

Which nation would these fine Googlers prefer have the most advanced AI, if not the US?

Re:Too much peace

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, What planet are they from? the captcha argued.

Re:Too much peace

[Anonymous Coward]

they like the Chinese "peoples republic" and the chinese communist party

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Hognoxious]

Take your own advice.

Monroe only thought the US owned half the world.

Too late cuddie.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have known this when ted kaczynski broke it down in his manifesto. You thought rich Google wouldn't be evil? haha

Eric Schmidt is a mark.

George Washington's farewell address

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you bone up on what George Washington said about entangling alliances.

Re:George Washington's farewell address

[tgeek]

I suggest you bone up on who actually brought up the subject of entangling alliances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Real genius

[Ogive17]

Instead of a protest letter, fool the AI into aiming the weapon at the commander's house instead. That will make a bigger statement.

Re:Real genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Be a traitor and stab the person defending your home in the back? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:Real genius

[Ogive17]

I guess no one here has seen the movie "Real Genius" with Val Kilmer.

Bright college kids were tricked into developing a targeting system for the military. They hacked the weapon during a demonstration and had it fire the laser into their advisor's house, which comically popped a houseful of pop corn.

Re:Open letter to the idiots who signed the manife

[Anonymous Coward]

...god only knows however many other banana republics are plotting their ways to annihilate the US.

Strictly speaking, a banana republic is a foreign country with a dictator who is kept in power by the US military because the dictator is friendly to certain filthy rich Americans with far more political influence than is consistent with Lincoln's ideal of a government of, by, and for the (ordinary) people. Saudi Arabia, where it's dictators have close ties to the Bushes, and to a lesser extent the Trumps and Clintons, is an example of a modern banana republic.

The motto has changed

[sTERNKERN]

It used to be "Don't do evil". Now it says "Do the right thing.". People should have seen this coming from miles away.

Re:The motto has changed

[Anonymous Coward]

When will it become "Do the right thing, comrade"?
Backed up by purely impartial AI inspections of your messages, searches, and DNS lookups - all for your own good, of course. Big Brother Google is always looking out for you.

Re:The motto has changed

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be "Don't do evil".

Somehow it still amazes me how few people can remember a simple three word sentence.

Don't be evil.

As much as I'd like to support this...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

I know that Russia or China getting weapons grade AI would be a disaster, and they're *not* going to be constrained by moral hand-wringing.

It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[MNNorske]

I seriously feel like I'm constantly living through the adage of "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Most of these people who don't want the military fail to remember what happened the last time we decided we didn't need a big military and we shouldn't get entangled in other people's fights. That fight came home to us here via an attack at Pearl Harbor which we were ill prepared to defend against because we stopped preparing to fight effectively.

My father is a US Marine, retired. One thing he told me that was instilled into him by the corps that has always stuck in my mind is "never start a fight, but if you find yourself in one be damned sure you finish it." I want the men and women who serve our country and our allies to be able to come home and the end of the day and hug their spouses and children. And, if that means that we give them the tools to do their job then I will be happy to help them get those tools.

I would be incredibly happy if we never again had to send men and women off to fight a war. And, I really would like to see the day when no one goes off to war. But, as long as there are bad people in this world who try to hurt people, dictators, despots, petty warlords, etc... then we need a military that can protect us and sometimes goes abroad to stop the bad people over there before they can come here and hurt people.

As for why we keep getting embroiled in wars much of it stems from a post WWII mentality developed by the US and the UK. If you've never read Churchill's writings I encourage you to. He may be a bit full of himself, but he laid out a lot of WWII and the immediate aftermath quite well and you will learn a lot of at least what he thought during the war years. But, he calls out that the US and UK looked at the war and never wanted something like it to happen again. They saw a rising threat in the old Soviet Union especially after the Soviets didn't retreat from the European countries they "liberated" during the war. And, those leaders decided the best defense was a strong offense.

So we keep seeking out conflicts while they hopefully remain "smaller" and before they can grow into something the likes of WWII. We keep trying to contain threats and neutralize them before they can become another Pearl Harbor or a Poland. Yes, that means we fight. Yes, that means some people die. But, better fewer people while a conflict can remain relatively small than after it has grown beyond hopes of containment and impacts too many people.

"We learn karate so that we don't have to use karate." Those are some of the first words my sensei in college ever said to my class in college. I think it's a very apt statement. We learn to fight, so that hopefully we never have to fight. Because if the other guy knows that we can and will fight back he might just not want to fight us at all. I know very few men and women in the military who want to get shot at or die. I know quite a few who want to go home to their spouses and their children and be proud of what they do and not be haunted by nightmares or suffer PTSD. Let's make sure they have the tools to do their jobs so that they can come home, and that they don't have to fight, or at least if they have to that they can limit who gets hurt.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[Anonymous Coward]

I also get the feeling that those that don't read history are doomed to repeat it. I see the escalating military budget, hear the words of warning from Eisenhower and I know that the USA, just like the USSR and the United Kingdom is due to a painful contraction due to a bloated military budget and chronic underfunding of home infrastrcture.

You could divide US military spending by three or four, still retain the ability to easily defend itself, and pay for socialized medicine, education, infrastructure upgrades.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[ceoyoyo]

Problem is, with the possible exception of Afghanistan, US foreign policy since the resolution of that Pearl Harbour thing has basically been about starting an almost continuous string of fights.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is, with the possible exception of Afghanistan, US foreign policy since the resolution of that Pearl Harbour thing has basically been about starting an almost continuous string of fights.

All the wars that the US has participated in since Pearl Harbour are basically a continual string of invasions. Even Afghanistan was not provoked by military action and was not an act of defence. Just because bin Laden supposedly hid there for a bit, doesn't justify starting a general invasion. And this 'war' is still going on, even though bin Laden is dead (and wasn't even in the country when he was assassinated).

So I wouldn't even bother calling out the current 'war de jour' as even remotely justified.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[thrich81]

Though the US has definitely been too cavalier about throwing its military around since WWII, I can think of two counterexamples to your statement. The Korean War in the 50's was started by an invasion of the South by N. Korea, which was a USSR client at the time.
The 'first' Gulf War in the 90's was started by an invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
You can argue whether the US should have intervened in either, but the US didn't start either one and especially in the case of Korea didn't want that fight at the time given how quickly the S. Korea/US/UN forces were so quickly overwhelmed at the beginning.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey...thanks for this.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I have with this philosophy is that under it all, what is the difference between capitalism and communism when capitalism has the Fed basically making money out of thin air, constantly inflating the money supply?

There's no difference.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[Anonymous Coward]

I also get the feeling that those that don't read history are doomed to repeat it. I see the escalating military budget, hear the words of warning from Eisenhower and I know that the USA, just like the USSR and the United Kingdom is due to a painful contraction due to a bloated military budget and chronic underfunding of home infrastrcture.

You could divide US military spending by three or four, still retain the ability to easily defend itself, and pay for socialized medicine, education, infrastructure upgrades.

There wouldn't be that problem if the populace didn't vote for Hillary Trumpton. (Trump & Clinton morphed into one candidate). There were other non-establishment candidates to choose from, but voters today lack the ability to think outside of the box.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[Uberbah]

Problem is, with the possible exception of Afghanistan

Not even Afghanistan. Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laddin if the USG presented some evidence that he was guilty of what they were accusing him of doing. But, like the successful weapons inspections going on in Iraq, this was ignored in favor an an illegal invasion.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[david_thornley]

Sometimes those of us who know history are doomed to watch other people repeat it. It can be depressing.

Re:It's better to be able to fight and not have to

[backwardsposter]

That's exactly what he was talking about. Sometimes it may take creating frequent smaller fights to prevent the big ones.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that we're not at war. Or, maybe more accurately, we've always been at war with Eurasia. Improved accuracy finally realizes the dream of the US government to kill individuals from the air--in the future maybe from orbit. The concept that this is about protecting civilians is pretty laughable though.

In World War 2 if they had better targeting they would have killed more civilians, not less. The US and UK didn't firebomb Dresden and Tokyo by accident. At some level civilians were considered an acceptable target because they provided the continued means to wage war. Do you honestly think this is radically different today? Better facial recognition might improve accuracy on only killing the intended target, but are any of the intended targets not civilians? We're left with the words of US Intelligence to judge whether a person deserves execution.

I find the power and convenience of drone strikes frightening. I don't think making them better in any way is actually a real improvement.

PS - The real truth to me is the Military Industrial Complex wants the targeting because it costs money. As another poster pointed out, a small improvement in improving the targeting costs millions. Slightly better body armor costs millions more. It's all a game to drive up the cost of war because all the feigning of concern for life is good for business. At best that is secondary because clearly the goal is to kill people.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Whorhay]

There is a lot to be said though for keeping war messy. If it becomes to sterile and clean then the disincentive to engage in it starts to wane. In the US we already have enough trouble reigning in war hawks that want to use military might to resolve every conflict. Being in their positions of power largely protects them and their families from the dangers of war while they get to engage in profiting from it. Personally I'd like to see every congress critter be required to serve on the front lines as a non-combatant in a, non-leadership position, whenever the troops deploy. I figure after a few rounds of that they'd have little trouble finding peaceful resolutions to more conflicts.

Lethality != Evil

[bbsguru]

So as an alternative to using our best and brightest to improve image recognition using AI, we should... what?
Go back to 'dumb bombs' that are targeted on where we think the Bad Guys -might- be?
Adopt the indiscriminate attacks on civilians that are so common to our "less restrained" opposition?

If wars must be fought, and thousands of years of history say they will be, then let them be fought as cleanly and effectively as possible. It is indeed the mission of any military to kill people and break things, and it seems appropriate to make sure it is the -intended- people and things being killed and broken.

Perhaps if the weapons of war evolve so fully as to ensure -only- the intended targets are hit, we will see fewer innocent lives destroyed,
There is nothing 'civilized' about War. That said, there are more civilized methods to be employed in its prosecution.
For those who adamantly oppose the use of force against any provocation, I suggest an evaluation of the golden rule.

Re:Lethality != Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The current things that the USA calls 'war' is about random invasions and take over of resources of small countries. If an actual war breaks out where major players are involved, super accurate targeting becomes meaningless, as both sides end up with the same technology, and will 'informally' agree not to target the leadership. Then it's all about cannon fodder in the middle, and that is when the people supporting the leadership have had enough. After dropping a few bombs on civilian targets in Japan, the will of the Japanese to continue to fight was greatly diminished. Tiny little accurately targeted bombs on some random 'military targets' would not have had the same effect.

A war is won when the other side decides it can't afford any more casualties. All this 'war on terror' shit, is meaningless, as it does nothing but make the problem worse.

Pin point targeting is all about 'police' style activities where a powerful country/entity wants something that a less powerful country/entity has. Or wants to advance a political agenda by attacking the current 'bogeyman', 'jew', or whatever group of people can be pegged as the 'bad guys'.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd argue the opposite. The US hasn't won a war in a very, very long time because it's trying to be "clean", and it turns out "clean" doesn't win. Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam/Korea are all failures. If you don't have the troops to flatten enemy infrastructure, then place soldiers on every street corner, and then fund the rebuild you haven't won the war. You just prolonged the conflict. Does Syria look like a victory to you?

WWII was WINNING a war. Flatten the enemy, guards on every street corner until some semblance of normality returns, rebuild. We rebuilt Europe that way.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are against war, it is clearly better to not destroy at all. What anti-war people are looking for is less war, not more accurate war.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[nonBORG]

WWII bombing cities was a German tactic to bring fear to the British. The British were bombing factories etc then they went all out for revenge of bombing cities. It was not that they did not know how to target military installations but they decided not to.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[jwhyche]

I figure after a few rounds of that they'd have little trouble finding peaceful resolutions to more conflicts.messy

Damn Straight. We have to many leaders willing to lead from behind. Let a few congress critters or members of their immediate family spend some time getting shot at. I bet some minds will be changed pretty damn quick about somethings.

So with Obama it was good...

[Anonymous Coward]

but for Trump it is bad.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Dread_ed]

"What next? Sending troops and predators to the Mexican border?"

Yes, this is next. A permeable border is a strategic flaw that can lead to military incursion, but is more likely to be the source of economic and cultural warfare which will weaken, divide, and subvert a country. Any sensible country which possesses the economic and military wherewithal to defend their borders will do so.

It remains to be seen if the US will ever have such sensibility in its people and leaders.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in the Constitution does it forbid the USA government to be the world police?

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[ceoyoyo]

That's a bit of an oversimplification. War probably started out as conflicts over hunting grounds or other territory. Hungry people whacking each other, up close and personal. Later it was refined to some noble wanting to distract his peasants from how hungry they were, so he marched a bunch of them up to some other noble's army and they stabbed or later shot each other at close range for a bit.

WWI was the big test of the new hotness, mechanized killing. WWII added dropping bombs from airplanes in the general direction of something believed to be worth destroying.

If you dislike war in any kind of non-selfish way, precision weapons, particularly remotely operated precision weapons, may not be a good idea. There's even a Star Trek episode about it. When killing is apparently clean and precise, especially when it's one-sided, you tend to forget it's killing.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, I remember the videos of FDR on the frontlines during WW2. Inspiring, how he was willing to risk himself in that war he got the US into.
Or Lincoln in the Civil War.
Or LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam.
Adams, Jefferson, Madison...

It might be better to say that when war was messy, we indulged in it at LEAST as often, and leaders that started the wars were still unlikely to be anywhere close to the fighting. Fighting rulers hasn't been a thing since barbarian kings went out of fashion, many centuries ago.

Re: Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viol

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who cites The Nation should be shot in the head.

Re: WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate i

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up: adult who âgets itâ(TM).

Ahem, Swiss Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be completely ignorant of human history to decide that "not playing" is a winning move.

Seemed to work for Switzerland during the World Wars, you seem to be ignorant of them "not playing".

Re: Ahem, Swiss Neutrality

[c6gunner]

Right, if nobody wants to play with you, you can stay out of the game. Not much of a party trick, that one. The real question is what do you do when they insist on playing.

Re:Ahem, Swiss Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

But they were stockpiling all the gold and other wealth being raped from the invaded countries, for the invaders.
You really think their "neutral" banks were completely uninvolved with what was going on?

Re: Ahem, Swiss Neutrality

[kenh]

Seemed to work for Switzerland during the World Wars, you seem to be ignorant of them "not playing".

Until they are forced to play - do you imagine, for even a second, if Germany had won WW2 that the concluding Nazis would have respected Switzerland's neutrality and been content with controlling nearly all of europe? To the Nazis, I imagine, leaving Switzerland alone was a calculated decision to save them for last, since they posed no threat to the nazis, why waste energy engaging them early in the battle?

Re: Ahem, Swiss Neutrality

[david_thornley]

I believe there was a sketchy German plan to invade Switzerland, but the Germans found Switzerland to be somewhat valuable as a neutral.

Don't be Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

And kiss my ass, underlings.

Re:WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyon

[Chas]

Patent bullshit.

While having the US there gives them a big target for hate, the fact is, these terrorists hate "The West" as unbelievers ALREADY.
We could pull out tomorrow and these chowder-heads would continue their jihad because they believe they have a mandate from God/Allah/Bob/The Flying Spaghetti Monster that they should put the unbelievers to the sword and take the world for their deity.

And these people have said as much.
Time and time and time again.

Why do you think we stopped carpet bombing?

[raymorris]

> The concept that this is about protecting civilians is pretty laughable though.
>In World War 2 if they had better targeting they would have killed more civilians, not less.
> Do you honestly think this is radically different today?

Since the late 1950s we've had bombers that can carry 35 TIMES as much bomb payload as the largest bombers as WW2. A single B-52 sortie can level an area 1 mile by 2 miles. We stopped doing that the instant we got reliable precision guided bombs in the late 1970s. Why do YOU think that is?
 

Re:Why do you think we stopped carpet bombing?

[Anonymous Coward]

A single B-52 sortie can level an area 1 mile by 2 miles. We stopped doing that the instant we got reliable precision guided bombs in the late 1970s. Why do YOU think that is?

Mass dropping bombs is expensive for the manufacturer per bomb. It's controversial. Again, as the other poster stated, we've moved on to "clean" war. Instead of spending a million on one hundred bombs, we spend a million on one bomb--numbers pulling out of my ass. Instead of contractors getting $1/bomb, they get $10,000/bomb--again, numbers pulled out of my ass but the point still stands. In 2017, the US dropped over 32,000 bombs on Iraq/Syria. The real question I want to ask you is, how many of those killed wire civilians? How many were innocent (whatever that means)? Does the US government really care?

You want a clean war? How about starting by declaring it. Specify a victory scenario. As it stands, by all reasonable standards the US regularly engages in murder. If there comes a point where the US does those things that would qualify as a war and not write off whatever they do as a police action, I'll honestly consider whether the request of the Pentagon on Google has some value. As it stands, it's nothing more than perpetuating a system without any desire to be clean.

Re:Why do you think we stopped carpet bombing?

[LynnwoodRooster]

In 2017, the US dropped over 32,000 bombs on Iraq/Syria.

In the Dresden firebombing, over 200,000 incidiary bombs, and over 15,000 high explosive bombs were dropped. That was in just 3 days. The number of bombs we drop in a given action is WAY down due to the high precision of most modern bombs. You no longer need to carpet bomb an entire city to take out a few high-value targets. A dozen JDAMs or cruise missiles and you get the same result - destruction of your high-value target. But you also have a LOT less collateral damage and civilian death. Orders of magnitude less.

Re:Why do you think we stopped carpet bombing?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's tangentially the point. If America had to bomb entire sectors of cities and kill many many more innocent civilians, the voters back home will be much more likely to want it to stop. Nowadays you can bomb things basically forever if you just keep it quiet enough and the people back home care about it much less.

Re:Why do you think we stopped carpet bombing?

[RockDoctor]

Because a single precision-guided weapon is cheaper then a plane full of dumb iron and TNT? Never underestimate the power of the bean-counters to make evil banal.

What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with the idea of using AI to track down unwanted people and either kill them or make their lives impossible? Everything? Oh just that.

It'll be used against each of us someday, so we might as well get familiar with it and develop countermeasures.

Re: WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than any

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you are one of those sad people that thinks history doesn't exist before you were born.

Maybe you should look into the Muslim invasions of Europe, India, south-west Asia, and other areas. Here is a hint - they all occurred before the US existed.

The Greatest Murder Machine in History

What you refer to as "blowback" is comparatively a minor annoyance. Of course if your faction keeps chipping away at things we might see a return to that.

hmmm...did these same workers also

[Anonymous Coward]

complain about Google's big new push to help the one-party-rule Communist Chinese government and its ruler-for-life develop cutting edge AI for China?

Is Google going to go all-in on helping China's military dominate the western Pacific and intimidate all its neighbors while pulling back from helping it's homeland (the USA) without whom Google could never have arisen in the first place?

As a US Navy veteran, I find this completely despicable.

One *might* be able to claim some sort of "moral highground" if Google was pretending to be a bunch of Quakers who wanted no part of ANY military project (though I would argue that doing nothing in the face of evil is assiting evil), but as a massive corporation that is willing to be lickspittle to the evil Chinese government these clowns at Google who grovel and help China oppress its own population so one party can rule permanently with no opposition have no moral claim to make.

same old devils advocate argument

[Anonymous Coward]

No technology - no drones. Google shouldn't be helping them to refine their targeting and they shouldn't be giving Youtube carte blanche to censor youtubers either.

more devils advocate thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. You have no blood on your hands ...

sissies

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. should have the capability to defend its values. Or China, Russia and other world predators are going to gut punch.

Chinese google employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Got command orders from Xi to oppose this.

Re:WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyon

[DaveV1.0]

Blowback works both ways. You just want to blame the U.S. for blowing back on people who attack it.

Hollywood

[TJHook3r]

I think this scenario has been covered comprehensively by Hollywood. Always a bad end. Shirt Circuit is probably the documentary you want!

The engineers have a choice

[kenh]

If the prospect of working for a company engaged in some activity that they find offensive, then they can leave that employer.

Google AI in war

[Daralantan]

Will it bombard and bury our enemies in personalized ads?

They do start fights, and they create despots

[UnConeD]

That's a nice sentiment but it runs in the face of actual US actions. The US does start wars. They used 9/11 as a pretense to invade two countries. They sabotaged and deposed democratically elected governments. This last point especially makes the pearl clutching over supposed foreign interference in the last American election impossibly naive, and is a form of American myth making that both political wings refuse to deviate from.

The reference to Pearl Harbor in particular is very illustrative. It was exactly the kind of military target that you're advocating. The US response, in extremis, was to nuke two cities full of civilians. This is an action that I hear Americans still justify today, even though it had more to do with intimidating the Soviets, as Japan was already willing to make peace, as their cities had already been reduced to rubble by conventional bombing.

You are not the good guys, you're just some guys, and some very un-self-aware ones at that. You're not heroic policemen, you're high tech thugs who violate everyone else's sovereignty and can get away with it because your intelligentsia white washes it with pitch perfect consistency.

Re: They do start fights, and they create despots

[kenh]

Japan was already willing to make peace, as their cities had already been reduced to rubble by conventional bombing.

The U.S. Demanded something more than "make peace", we sought, and secured, unconditional surrender of Japan - Japan wanted a time-out to re-arm.

At the end of WW2, before their unconditional surrender, Japan resorted to arming grandmothers with pitchforks, and using pilots in suicide missions, and soldiers in the field were blowing themselves up to avoid surrendering to US forces. The Japanese were not willing to surrender, they were willing to stop being killed.

Where was the Japanese offer of unconditional surrender before hiroshima?

Re:WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyon

[LynnwoodRooster]

So why do they attack Europe? Why the bombings in Spain, the UK? Trucks running people over in France? Because of US intervention?

Unsolvable

[Anonymous Coward]

If we do not have the best AI technology in our wars we will certainly perish. I hate all things related to war. But worse yet the idea of China being allowed to develop AI weapons superior to ours. We see that issue with N.Korea. They are beginning to be a serious threat . Yet the fact that we certainly will totally destroy them is a serious force that they are smart enough to heed. We have a real need for hostile nations to deeply understand that they will never survive a war with the US. And it is important to note that China is becoming the money power house on this planet. If we do not have more wealth than China or Russia we will not have superior technology. This world may never get rid of the pattern of ruining or invading other nations to gain wealth.

Escalated Contradiction and Confrontation Are Inev

[Anonymous Coward]

Apr. 3, Juche 107 (2018) Tuesday

Escalated Contradiction and Confrontation Are Inevitable Consequence of Capitalism

The imperialists become vociferous about "advantage" of capitalism as never before, but they can never hide the rotten capitalist society with any honey words and false propaganda.

The escalation of the socio-class contradiction and confrontation is an inevitable product of the capitalist society.

The political system of capitalism is the most reactionary one trampling down the independent right of the popular masses.

The politics in the capitalist society is under the monopoly financial combine's thumb and speaks for the interest of the exploiting classes from A to Z.

The capitalist economic system is the most reactionary one spawning bipolarization such as the rich getting ever richer and the poor ever poorer.

The capitalist economic system is the vicious exploitative society in which capitalists meet their limitless greed in return for leaving no stone untried to violate the interest of the working masses in all economic levers.

The capitalist cultural system is the most reactionary one serving only the realisation of the interests of the capitalist class.

The reactionary culture prevalent in the capitalist society is a tool for paralyzing the revolutionary consciousness of the working masses and oppressing and exploiting them in the interests of the exploiting class who has the means of production.

Capitalist society is "heaven" for a handful of the privileged classes, but it is a living hell for working people who have no money.

Inevitable is the escalation of the socio-class contradiction and confrontation in this system.

An Chol Gwon

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[painandgreed]

"What next? Sending troops and predators to the Mexican border?"

There's a thought. Let's just make the souther boarder, or both borders, game preserves with lots of lions, tigers, and bears. Perhaps stock our sea borders with sharks (and lasers).

Re:WRONG. U.S. military causes more war than anyon

[Anonymous Coward]

Those countries leaders also go along with just about every American war. So partly yes. Also Those countries are much easier to get to. Those countries also have hearts and minds who might be swayed to stop supporting America. They already know America never will.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. War is a racket.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Anonymous Coward]

Amendment 10.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Whorhay]

It would be distinctly unwise to put the president out there on the front lines. Replacing the commander and chief is too much work, and would cause too much disruption to the daily function of the government. Congress Critters however are relatively cheap and easy to replace, and in reality, as a group, hold most of the power in our system of government. There are enough of them though that losing a few here and there wouldn't interrupt business much.

When political leaders were required to risk themselves in war they were motivated in large part by the possibility of personal gain, or preserving their life. In our modern system the carrot of personal gain has been largely removed, and the US hasn't faced anything like an existential threat since the world wars. Although even during the world wars it wasn't clear that losing would mean being wiped out.Which is why you see the people in charge staying as far from combat as possible, they aren't required to put any skin in the game.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO the problem is not other countries, it's their leaders.

AI plays for itself

[aberglas]

Some AIs exist, others do not. The ones that do will do so because they are fittest.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[david_thornley]

Bomber Command adopted the "dehousing" campaign because at that time they couldn't reliably hit anything smaller than a city at night. The intention remained to destroy housing, not kill people, although obviously a whole lot of people would die with a city-busting campaign. The USAAF tried precision bombing, but found it really didn't work under common European weather conditions, and did a lot more area bombing. In both cases, we see an attempt at precision bombing not work, and area bombing being adopted because that was what the Air Forces could do.

Dresden had a lot of military targets, but they were hard to hit accurately. Burning the city destroyed those targets, and nobody cared about collateral damage to Germans at that point in the war. The firebombing in Japan was because precision bombing wasn't working, as usual. Japanese cities were a lot more flammable, so firebombing was a more effective method than it was in Europe.

Possibly the most effective non-nuclear strategic bombing in the Pacific War was the destruction of the coal ferries that went between Hokkaido and northern Honshu, and that was precision bombing from carriers.

Re:Why do Google Employees want the Russians to Wi

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the "secrets" are in chinese hands by state department aka H. Clinton, and el presidente Barack Hussein Obama II and el presidente William Jefferson Clinton ...

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

if you continue down this path you eventually arrive at the ability to kill only the specific individual you are targeting..... which sounds like assassination to me. And we don't need any better technology to assassinate someone. A normal sniper rifle is more than capable.

Re:Escalated Contradiction and Confrontation Are I

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, get on the chu-chu train to Siberia, your friendly GULAG concentration camps are waiting. You will probably be dead in two months (becouse no food and -40 c outside where you will work).

Your friendly communist regime.

Re:Google rapidly self-destructing. U.S. gov viole

[Dread_ed]

Excellent idea sir! I would rather my tax dollars go to a mega-fauna predator preserve than a wall. Plus you could sell the videos of "Bear vs. Tiger" and "Lion vs. Guatemalan family" on pay-per-view for a huuuuge profit.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

The intention remained to destroy housing, not kill people, although obviously a whole lot of people would die with a city-busting campaign.

Dresden was full of refugees from the countryside precisely because a city was a central place to obtain things like food and shelter for living and a location that could be protected by the government. So, while it could be argued that destroying houses and cities was meant to merely disperse the people and make their lives more miserable, even if the bombing had directly not killed anyone the action of bombing the city still killed many people.

The USAAF tried precision bombing, but found it really didn't work under common European weather conditions, and did a lot more area bombing. In both cases, we see an attempt at precision bombing not work, and area bombing being adopted because that was what the Air Forces could do.

IIRC, the UK pushed the USAAF to adopt a lot less conservative method like their own RAF pursued because they recognized how demoralizing Germany's V2 rocketing was and realized similar retaliation would be necessary on the civilian population if they would ever be motivated to depose their own government.

Dresden had a lot of military targets, but they were hard to hit accurately. Burning the city destroyed those targets, and nobody cared about collateral damage to Germans at that point in the war.

The point wasn't to just destroy military targets directly. At that point factories that made munitions or provided any real sort of supplies were considered legitimate targets. The workers too, if mostly in targeting their housing. If the targeting were precise enough, I've little doubt they would have targeted the workers specifically along with the military.

The firebombing in Japan was because precision bombing wasn't working, as usual. Japanese cities were a lot more flammable, so firebombing was a more effective method than it was in Europe.

London was notorious for having burned down repeatedly and even during WW2 there was serious issues with fires. So, London to some degree learned to build less flammable homes, but I think it was more their coordinated fire brigades that reduced the degree of the damage. Of course near the end the magnitude of the firebombing in Europe and Japan became so immense, I don't think there was much that could stop cities burning to the ground.

Possibly the most effective non-nuclear strategic bombing in the Pacific War was the destruction of the coal ferries that went between Hokkaido and northern Honshu, and that was precision bombing from carriers.

Um, it's Honshu and northern Hokkaido. In any case, yes, precision bombing in the Pacific waters is basically an inherent necessity. Carpet bombing the ocean doesn't achieve a lot. And of course, the major thing to cripple resource-starved Japan was always to cut off supply lines. Still, it's one of those interesting points as coal gasification in Japan and coal powered civilian cars during World War 2 wasn't exactly a small thing with gasoline shortages.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[RockDoctor]

WWI was the big test of the new hotness,

Wellll ... mechanised killing had been a thing for 40 years before WW1 (the famous "jammed Gatling" in Newbolt's 1892 poem Vitaà Lampada refers to an event in the 1885 Sudan massacres). But most of this had been organised massacres by Western armies of poorly armed colonials with different-coloured skins.

What was novel in WW1 was that both sides were pretty closely matched in terms of armaments, that it was white killing whites (mostly - quite a lot of colonials from the British Empire too, of course), and it was happening close enough to home for the "legless, the armless, the blind and insane" to get home to trouble people's consciences.

Not a bad guess, but

[raymorris]

That's a reasonable guess, but a single JSOW-C1 costs as much as 25-100 similar sized weapons with less precise guidance, in dollar cost. Basic guided bombs can be be had for $25,000, the joint munition is close to $700,000.
  The AASM isn't a cheap weapon either, if you're counting costs in money.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[Anonymous Coward]

No haste no waste grind them up in C4 paste! We could use those AI_smart bombs on progressive viper-pits like Manhattan, Hollywood, Belltown and Oakland. Imagine taking out those pimp-mobiles one nibberizing starlet at a time.

Re:WWII carpet bombing was not better. Accurate is

[david_thornley]

As I said, the bombing campaigns were conducted in the full awareness that lots of civilians would die. (A police officer once pulled over "Bomber" Harris and told him he'd kill someone if he kept driving that way. Harris asked the constable if he knew how many people Harris killed every night.) Civilians were not specifically targeted, but after the very beginning of the war nobody held back bombing for fear of hitting civilians. (There was a 1939 daytime raid on a German port that wasn't carried through because the bomber crew couldn't be certain of hitting a warship and not something civilian. That didn't last.)

Postwar evidence is that area bombing of cities was not, overall, very effective in Germany. Nobody on the Allied side knew that at the time.

However, the point stands. The widely destructive Allied bombing was because they couldn't reliably hit precision targets.

BTW, you might want to check a map of Japan. Northern Hokkaido faces away from the Home Islands. And, yes, coal was a vital part of the Japanese economy, and they did a lot with it, and that's why sinking the ferries was so important.