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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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]

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

Re:Not very patriotic

[Chronus1326]

Agree

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.

[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.

[kenh]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

[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.

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: 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>

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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."

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

[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.

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

[Hognoxious]

Take your own advice.

Monroe only thought the US owned half the world.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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/...

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: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: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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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?

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: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: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.

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: 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.

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

[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

[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.