Slashdot Mirror


Google Employees Resign in Protest Against Pentagon Contract (gizmodo.com)

Kate Conger, reporting for Gizmodo: It's been nearly three months since many Google employees -- and the public -- learned about the company's decision to provide artificial intelligence to a controversial military pilot program known as Project Maven, which aims to speed up analysis of drone footage by automatically classifying images of objects and people. Now, about a dozen Google employees are resigning in protest over the company's continued involvement in Maven.

The resigning employees' frustrations range from particular ethical concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in drone warfare to broader worries about Google's political decisions -- and the erosion of user trust that could result from these actions. Many of them have written accounts of their decisions to leave the company, and their stories have been gathered and shared in an internal document, the contents of which multiple sources have described to Gizmodo.

469 comments

  1. It's only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    before Google themselves are so entrenched in American government and policies that there will be assassinations attributed to them.

    Good to see that some of the people are stand up against it.

    1. Re: It's only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked their old motto better than their new one.

    2. Re: It's only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely it's only a matter of time before Google employees are acting out scenes from Fahrenheit 451 or 1984.

      They are a brainwashed cult drunk on an insane ideology where all humans must be identical, where divergent thought is a crime, and where political violence to enforce their dogma is both justified and celebrated.

      Fuck Google, and fuck their employees. They are traitors to humanity, dignity, and self expression.

    3. Re: It's only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't Appear To Be Be Evil While Plotting To Be Evil" ?

    4. Re: It's only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well afterall.... all our data are belong to Google

    5. Re: It's only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well someone will do it anyway as the technology is already there.

      China is probably already doing it. Next to US, China probably has the most advanced AI.

      Their drone tech is also right up there. Just look at DJI....

      You might think itâ(TM)s consumer stuff... and thatâ(TM)s right.... consumer stuff can already do all that crazy shit.... the bar for entry is not as high as people think.

      By resigning, they are betraying their country. Like dodging a draft claiming bone spurs?

    6. Re: It's only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like weâ(TM)re already in the dystopian future.....so if we donâ(TM)t do what is necessary then weâ(TM)re gonna become irrelevant...

      Fuck you! Iâ(TM)ll rather fade out of existence than give up our beliefs.

    7. Re:It's only a matter of time by jtgd · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for that frightening domain name to appear...

      Google.gov

      --
      J
  2. and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they are happy to sell cloud services to even worse people

    1. Re: and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegals H1B, mafia, and terrorists are all sponsored by the Pentagon.
      Yes, they've been in that business since inception.

    2. Re: and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they've been in that business since inception.

      Inception was released in 2010, doesn't seem like that long ago.

  3. Of course by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They were all in when it was a creepy private data mining operation, but do something to support the legitimate aims of government and defend the nation, and it goes against their precious principles.

        We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.

    1. Re:Of course by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.

      We're talking about AI being used to control drones.

      It's a slippery slope. At a certain point, those drones won't need any humans remote controlling them.

      And those drones definitely won't "have any notion of right and wrong".

    2. Re:Of course by Nidi62 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.

      You're right, but you're wrong on who the sociopaths are. The sociopaths are the ones using drones to bomb weddings. A lot of what the US does to "protect the nation" is counterproductive, because all it does is breed more enemies. A perfect example would be, oh, I don't know, supporting and approving apartheid by moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Of course by Nutria · · Score: 0

      What else is a slippery slope, that these snowflakes enthusiastically supported at the giant advertising and private data slurping company that is Google?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Of course by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Legitimate aims of government" indeed.

      Thye don't want their work being used for weapons systems, that's not what they signed up for, and their moral compass dictates that leaving is the right move. Are you actually claiming that they should be punished for not living according to their own conscience, that their employer or the government should have the right to force them to do work that goes against their own conscience? If so then how un-American of you.

      ..oh, and never mind the fact that these so-called 'AIs' (which are pseudo-intelligent at best, not real Artificial Intelligence) will inevitably make mistakes, which will lead to non-combatants being targeted and killed. That's at the core of why these people are 'quitting in protest', and that's why people make a moral choice to not work on weapons of war.

    5. Re:Of course by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I don't care if Google wants to know if I'm more interested in diapers or Depends.

      The problem is can government track stuff like that, to misuse in a Panopticon?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic creation of any AI whatsoever is a slippery slope and they all should have quit as soon as Google started heading down that road.

    7. Re:Of course by omnichad · · Score: 1

      which are pseudo-intelligent at best, not real Artificial Intelligence

      Pseudo, fake, artificial. That's what artificial means.

    8. Re:Of course by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The sociopaths are the ones using drones to bomb weddings.

      Uh... The people using the drones are the ones asking for an AI to tell them "Even though the local informant said this was a training camp, it looks more like a wedding".

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    9. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually claiming that they should be punished for not living according to their own conscience

      No, GPP said nothing about punishment. He merely criticized the judgments of such a conscience, the idea that selling defense technology to your own nation is worse than commercial spying on your neighbors.

    10. Re:Of course by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 5, Informative

      > We're talking about AI being used to control drones.

      No, we're talking about AI being used for analysis of the data provided by those drones. To weed through the thousands of hours of pictures to make it easier for humans to make decisions. At least, that was the original story that caused these people to promise to resign if it happened.

      It's stuff these people were already developing AI to do - just a different user base. Rather than delivery targeted advertising, it might be something else targeting them.

    11. Re:Of course by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As if corporations are somehow less evil, less prone to abuses of power than governments?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I cant believe this got modded so high. Bravo, mods.

    13. Re:Of course by vux984 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong."

      People ostensibly working for a civilian advertising company; don't want to contribute directly to the development of autonomous military drone killing machines. And you call them 'sociopaths' who have no notion of right or wrong?

    14. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever get bored being so boring? Knock it off with that 2016 "snowflake" stuff. It was clever for 3 day's.

    15. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations have the check on their power of government. Government's only check is rebellion, which is usually to be avoided.

    16. Re:Of course by macraig · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just one, you reckon? You haven't been paying attention for very long. We've been doing it for many more than one. How do you suppose we acquired a sitting sociopathic President?

    17. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it seem like this is a problem better handled by cheap, disposable sub-drones that can get close enough to identify a wedding?

      Or a bomb that drops but doesn't detonate until a camera on it can verify that it's not a wedding?

      We don't need to bring fuzzy logic into this. It's not the solution.

    18. Re: Of course by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

      Whereas snowflakes like you are having a hissy fit over people not wanting to work for the government.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    19. Re:Of course by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      Being used for weapons system to help innocent people (correctly identifying and categorizing people leads to fewer civilian deaths).

      What they were doing was taking part in a massive effort to mine and actively HARM innocent people through data collection. Indeed what they were supporting before was vastly more harmful to more people than any weapon system.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    20. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're very clever. We're all super offended by your edginess.

    21. Re: Of course by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Except now the people giving the orders will not be so careful who the order to be bombs. "Google will tell us if it's not a valid target, so send it everywhere."

      Better yet, now when a bunch of civillians get killed, it's Google's fault, not the military's.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    22. Re: Of course by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      By voting for Nixon, obviously.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    23. Re:Of course by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.

      Well... do you think Presidents, Senators and House Representatives grow on trees?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    24. Re:Of course by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I don't care if Google wants to know if I'm more interested in diapers or Depends.

      In either case, I think Google will just point you to 4chan /d/.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    25. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it hurt to be so stupid and to slurp up cum-covered propaganda?

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

    26. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's what artificial means.

      "artificial - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural."

      All the AI produced so far is at best in the pseudo category precisely because it can't actually mimic natural behavior, reactions, etc. Advanced pattern matching that works really well so long as you're selective on your inputs? Yes. Start throwing in really unrelated input and get horribly obvious false positives? Yes. Humans have the ability to recognize that false positives might be occurring or be nonsensical and will stop to take a second look. There's nothing about "AI" that includes judgement or consideration.

      But, who knows, maybe even with all that AI will make less mistakes. So, we should use it anyways because it'll mean less civilian casualties, right? Watch "A Taste of Armageddon". The real sickness is that we have so many targets and we're already too willing to "go to war" because we've made it so asymmetrical. Aiding this will only make more war. The per incident civilian casualties may go down, but the number of encounters and the number of civilian causalities will surely go up. And if by some miracle the numbers do go down, each Google employee who worked on it will know that every failure on their part means the death of an innocent person. Maybe military folk can live with that because it's their job*. Apparently there's at least a dozen Google employees who do not want that to be their job.

      * I can understand an 18 year old being naive and joining the military because the US does a very good job indoctrinating its younger population that what the military does is justifiable for national security. I'm less understanding if they start to recognize the inconsistencies and the evilness of what the US government pushes for foreign policy and still go along with their job because turning conscientious objector might result in some sort of harm to them. There are a lot of places where law enforcement isn't a thing, but the US military doesn't act like the police. It's not so simple to argue that it is protecting US borders and the range of "US interests" is too broad to justify most thing. In the end, it's hard to know where the sociopaths begin in the military.

    27. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > The sociopaths are the ones using drones to bomb weddings.

      So you're saying Obama is a sociopath.

    28. Re:Of course by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed what they were supporting before was vastly more harmful to more people than any weapon system.

      I'd strongly dispute that. While I am a strong advocate for privacy rights, having Google scrape your personal data doens't make you bleed out or lose limbs. I find your argument to be invalid.

    29. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Legitimate aims of government" indeed.

      Do you believe that having a military which can win wars is not a legitimate aim of governments?

      Thye don't want their work being used for weapons systems, that's not what they signed up for, and their moral compass dictates that leaving is the right move.

      They are (of course) free to refuse to work at a company if they do not like the company's policies. No one denies that it is their right to make this choice. The fact that this is the policy they complain about is a bit of a surprise, given that the "reasoning" they give is so incoherent.

      Are you actually claiming that they should be punished for not living according to their own conscience, that their employer or the government should have the right to force them to do work that goes against their own conscience? If so then how un-American of you.

      No one believes any such thing, and you would know it if you read the posts you are responding to.

    30. Re: Of course by Sarten-X · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's pretty much what already happens. Drone operators are told "we have a report of a training camp holding a meeting here... go find it". Then the op flies around looking for a meeting, sees a bunch of gathered people, and with no indication to the contrary, command orders the strike. The idea that it might be a wedding never crosses anyone's mind.

      Adding an AI means there is now an unbiased process looking for alternative interpretations. The AI doesn't care what it's "looking for"... it just tries to guess what it's "looking at". It won't get a commendation for finding a good target, and it won't care how much the commander really wants to have a mission. It just says what it sees.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    31. Re:Of course by blind+biker · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      supporting and approving apartheid

      There is no apartheid in Israel. Arabs have all the rights that Jews have - including education, in which they excel - there is a higher percentage of Arabs in Israeli universities, than there are Arabs in Israel. Arabs have the right to vote just like any other Israeli citizen. The state of israel goes of of their way to accommodate their sensibilities by making army duty non-compulsory for Arabs (they are the only ones exempt from draft).

      I am not saying this to hurt your feelings, but saying there is "apartheid" in Israel is not true.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    32. Re:Of course by fredrated · · Score: 1, Troll

      The legitimate aims of government? Defend the nation? Open your eyes, this nation hasn't been defended in over 70 years. Instead we go all over the world, using war to promote our commercial and political interests and in general slaughtering people in their own countries. People that are of no conceivable threat to America or Americans. Now we want to slaughter these people more efficiently and quickly, and you call it 'defend[ing] our nation'! How sad. Wake up and smell the blood.

    33. Re: Of course by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Doesn't it seem like this is a problem better handled by cheap, disposable sub-drones that can get close enough to identify a wedding?

      Those "cheap, disposable sub-drones" are anything but. If they're disposable, they have to be replaced. That means ongoing expenses and increased supply lines out to forward bases. If they're cheap to the point where quality is compromised, they won't last long enough to complete the mission, and the enemy gets a chance to run away before the actual bomb drops.

      Or a bomb that drops but doesn't detonate until a camera on it can verify that it's not a wedding?

      So we put a camera on a bomb, hope the camera survives the drop, then wait patiently for the impact dust to clear, then get a video feed... and still need a human or an AI to look around and decide the small area of visible surroundings is or is not a wedding. Gee, I hope none of those terrorists ever get our secret can-of-spray-paint defense system.

      We don't need to bring fuzzy logic into this. It's not the solution.

      Well, it still seems better than the other ideas you've proposed.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    34. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is funny is that these people think Google is more honorable in anything else they do. Haha man.

    35. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      legitimate aims of government and defend the nation

      This hasn't been the Pentagon in a LONG LONG time

    36. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actively HARM innocent people through data collection

      That's quite a chasm of disbelief you're crossing here

    37. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human nature says if we don't build it, someone else will. Only thing possible to prevent it is international treaties like on nuclear test bans and chemical warfare where non-compliance results in severe consequences.

    38. Re:Of course by R33P · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the rest of Google's vast data apparatus _hasn't_ been used for military purposes before this? Puuhleeeaze :)

    39. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Trying to sell you a new laptop is totally on par with building robots that kill people. Fucktard.

    40. Re: Of course by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Adding an AI means there is now an unbiased process looking for alternative interpretations.

      AI is not necessarily unbiased. In fact it's very good at learning biases in its training data. So if it was trained on data generated by people who tend to mistake weddings for training camps, it will do the same. The difference is that now they can blame the computer for messing up.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    41. Re:Of course by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      As if corporations are somehow less evil, less prone to abuses of power than governments?

      Unlike governments, corporations cannot send men with guns to kick your door down in the middle of the night.

      Governments can compel, detain, arrest, imprison, and execute.

    42. Re:Of course by lhowaf · · Score: 2

      Thanks. Wish I had mod points. I didn't see any mention of controlling drones with AI. Apparently, these offended folks are ok with drones releasing weapons without proper analysis of the images - possibly endangering innocents.

    43. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...corporations cannot send men with guns to kick your door down in the middle of the night."

      They can use the government to do those things for them. It really only depends on how influential a particular corporation is.

    44. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> We're talking about AI being used to control drones.

      >No, we're talking about AI being used for analysis of the data provided by those drones. To weed through the thousands of hours of pictures to make it easier for humans to make decisions. At least, that was the original story that caused these people to promise to resign if it happened.

      Oh, okay. In that case, I rescind my resignation.

    45. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You came off very hostile in your reply. But anyway, you're right, the camera on the bomb is problematic.

      A cheap camera drone is not.

      Hell, you could do it very well for 4 grand with off the shelf components. It's just a quadcopter dropped by a small parachute and a relayed radio control / camera.

      Since the bomb itself costs hundreds of thousands, it's not a big deal.

    46. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the people who can't afford insurance because data mining detected they were searching for things which similar people who used a lot of insurance also searched for. Or those who were pushed into sugar addictions from tricky advertising, developed diabetes, and then lost limbs.

      Those people original were data mining to reduce the quality of life from as many people as they could. They have very little moral ground to stand on. That they dressed up their job as some innovative way to improve effectiveness is meaningless. They were making it more effective to convince people to act against their own interests and for those people to have a smile on their face when doing so. Fuck them.

      They were targeting people who were just trying to live their lives. At least the military job was in theory trying to target those who would try to hurt them. The military contract had higher morals.

    47. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you would prefer more regulation to curtail corporate power?

    48. Re:Of course by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mistake the divide of this apartheid as being between Jews and Arabs when it's actually between Israelis and Palestinians.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    49. Re: Of course by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Pitch your idea to the pentagon. If it's as good as you seem to think it us you could get yourself a very lucrative contract.

    50. Re: Of course by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's pretty much what already happens. Drone operators are told "we have a report of a training camp holding a meeting here... go find it". Then the op flies around looking for a meeting, sees a bunch of gathered people, and with no indication to the contrary, command orders the strike. The idea that it might be a wedding never crosses anyone's mind.

      No. There are personnel separate from the drone operator who analyze the footage and advise on whether or not to engage. Video analysis is their only job, and they undergo specialized training and assessment using footage of previous missions to ensure that they're not just going to randomly blow up whatever they see.

    51. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be just as evil, but don't have the power of governments.

    52. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So I told him that hed better shut his mouth
      And do his job like a man
      And he answered "Listen, father"

      "I will never kill another"
      He thinks hes better than his brother that died
      What the hell does he think hes doing
      To his father who brought him up right?"

    53. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations have fewer resources with which to accomplish those things. It's not because they can't, it's because it's expensive to do so.

    54. Re: Of course by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      People ostensibly working for a civilian data-harvesting company; don't want to contribute directly to the development of systems designed to decrease the number of civilians killed by existing killing machines. They're 'sociopaths' who have no notion of right or wrong.

      FTFY

    55. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So american employees resigning because of their company supporting american defense.... How many chinese AI workers will resign that their country is doing the same? Makes sense. Let's hope the US and Chinese stay friends. Hope is a policy, right?

    56. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is all such total and complete bullshit that I'm not even going to bother addressing any of it or putting my name to this. Weapons of war are weapons of war plain and simple and you're just arguing to argue. Fuck the fuck off.

    57. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

      You mean, the nation's self-identified capitol city?

    58. Re:Of course by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know, it's possible for the same act to be done for good or neutral reasons, while in other contexts be bad.

      I'm fine with Google collecting data to determine what ads to show me as long as it keeps that data secure and doesn't share it with anyone else. If Eric Schmidt can find out quickly that squiggleslash is also J. Smith from California and is into {list of sexual fetishes}, that's a problem. If server-x5-452.google.com can figure out that I'd be more likely to respond to an ad for a Ubuntu powered robotic lawnmower than a green high heeled shoe, then they can knock themselves out, that's fine by me.

      Similarly you're claiming it's totally OK to murder the families of terr... oh, you weren't? You were claiming that something something national security and didn't actually have a positive scenario other than MERIKA HELL YEAH?

      Because unfortunately, and with good reason, the dozen or so Google employees saw their work in terms of "OK, we're going to move from helping businesses send their message to receptive potential customers" to "Those drones that keep being used to kill supposed enemies of America and everyone around them including their families and innocent bystanders? Yeah, we're going to make those even less moral by removing the input from a human being who could, at least theoretically, pull the plug in a blatant act of murder."

      Here's hoping the first drone gets hacked, and is re-targeted... at you.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    59. Re:Of course by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Troll

      As if corporations are somehow less evil, less prone to abuses of power than governments?

      We are literally talking about the only part of the government here that is able to freely kill innocent people.

      The last time I recall a private corporation actually going to war on any serious scale (occasional Mark Thatcher lead mercenaries excepting) was Cecil Rhode's British South Africa Company, in the 19th Century.

      Today, corporations can be pretty evil, but they don't generally go out of their way to kill innocent people. Right now you're comparing collecting information used to target ads with removing the human check in a chain that, without the person, inevitably leads to innocent bystanders being killed. I think you need your moral compass remagnetized.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    60. Re:Of course by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      No, they're asking to be further removed from the decision making process, so that there will no longer be any humans involved.

      What makes you think that Google's AI is going to tell them not to bomb a wedding? The AI will only say "Yes, Gerry Adams and Oliver North are in range, fire now", not "Oh noooh! Gerry Adams and Oliver North are at a wedding y'all! Stop the attack!"

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    61. Re:Of course by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, two different types of groups use weapons of war. 1. Evil people attacking innocent people. 2. Innocent people defending themselves from the attacks of evil people. Your attempt to hide the difference puts you squarely into an evil group.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    62. Re: Of course by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      And both Roosevelts, Wilson, JFK, Clinton, and Obama.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    63. Re:Of course by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The blood was on the streets of New York City on September 11, 2001. More recently, the blood has been in Paris and London and other cities throughout Europe.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    64. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Catalonia is a self-identified nation, yet I've not seen the US open an embassy there, or even recognize it.
      Krim is "self-identified" Russian, yet there are sanctions.
      Iran is "self-identified" as never ever working on nuclear weapons, yet the US wants to re-instantiate sanctions.
      Maybe the "self-identify" thing is just a really idiotic criteria?

    65. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As is blaming Trump for everything, including sunspots.

    66. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would that solve? I think its an error in judgement to assume that one is to be more feared than the other.

    67. Re:Of course by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      they don't generally go out of their way to kill innocent people

      They never kill innocent people. That'd be a waste of money and would lower the stock price. They kill people that get in the way of profits. See the difference? It's just business.

    68. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey snowflake, i realize you didn't bother wasting any of your precious time doing any actual research (and probably didn't bother reading TFA) but we're talking about filtering data and identifying people and locations, not flying drones and dropping bombs.

      one leads to the other, sortof. but google isn't flying the drones or dropping the bombs. only helping sort data (which is used to identify targets)

      if your morality says we can't kill our enemies then you should probably go ahead and go over there, and let them know how much you appreciate them and want to help them.

    69. Re:Of course by Nutria · · Score: 0

      I'm fine with Google collecting data to determine what ads to show me as long as it keeps that data secure and doesn't share it with anyone else.

      And you don't have anything to hide from the police, either...

      Here's hoping the first drone gets hacked, and is re-targeted... at you.

      That's not very nice. In fact, it's mean. You're being mean to me!!!! Waaahhh!!!

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    70. Re:Of course by Nidi62 · · Score: 1, Informative

      supporting and approving apartheid

      The state of israel goes of of their way to accommodate their sensibilities by making army duty non-compulsory for Arabs (they are the only ones exempt from draft).

      Because they know they won't heavy-handedly oppress the Palestinians like the Jewish soldiers do. An Israeli soldier just got out of jail after only a year for shooting a wounded, already handcuffed Palestinian teenager in the head on camera! And let's not forget using live ammunition on children throwing rocks at armored vehicles.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    71. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they don't generally go out of their way to kill innocent people

      They never kill innocent people. That'd be a waste of money and would lower the stock price. They kill people that get in the way of profits. See the difference? It's just business.

      Because there's no overlap between the two? I think you need to draw up a Venn diagram.

    72. Re: Of course by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      I think your point could be argued more effectively if you had underlined or italicized more words.

    73. Re:Of course by swillden · · Score: 2

      They were all in when it was a creepy private data mining operation

      Have you considered the idea that perhaps Google employees are actually reasonable and privacy-conscious people, and that they're okay with what Google does because they see in detail exactly how it works and find it pretty harmless and a reasonable trade for the value of the services provided? You're making worst-case sort of guesses (which is reasonable) and assuming that what you're guessing is the same as the reality that Google employees see.

      FWIW, I'm a Google employee who is a long-time crypto security engineer and privacy advocate going back to the days of the old cypherpunks mailing list. I operated a remailer for years and now operate a Tor node. Inside of Google I see how the security systems are structured and how policy is applied to protect user data, and I'm generally quite comfortable with it. Google does a good job of securing user data against leaks, fights back hard against government access to data, makes responsible use of data in reasonable and non-harmful ways, is quite clear and up front about the fact that you are trading data for targeted advertising in exchange for the Google services you use (which are generally of quite high quality and value), avoids collecting or storing data that isn't relevant, and generally tries to do the right thing for users. That's not to say there are never any missteps or mistakes, but they are viewed as mistakes and are corrected.

      I'm not saying that you should believe me or agree with me. That's your call. But the above is my honest perspective based on what I see. I'm cognizant of the fact that I am biased by my (very nice) paycheck, but I believe I'm reasonably objective.

      FWIW, I also have no problem with Google working on military projects. In fact, when it comes to stuff like the application of AI to warfare, I would rather Google do it than another company, because it is an ethical minefield and I think Google is more concerned about the ethical implications than many other companies, mostly because Google has massive cash flow which provides more freedom to refuse to do unethical things. To people who have decided that their assumptions about Google's allegedly evil behavior are gospel truth, that last sentence seems insane, I'm sure. But those people should realize that they're basing that opinion on unsubstantiated assumptions.

      Anyway, I think these people who are resigning are silly and wrong. But I'm a former soldier, so I'm sure they would find my opinions distasteful. That's cool; we don't have to agree on everything. I'm sad they feel the need to leave the company, but I respect their integrity.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    74. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your finding to be invalid.

      Now we can call each invalid all day long but its all still opinion.

      Lets see, Reducing false positives and maybe making film analysis more accurate? or bilking people...
      One saves lives, the other is moral pudding. I will choose saving lives myself.

    75. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Palestinians"... what are these things that you speak of?

      Are you, perhaps, referring to the Arabs in the areas controlled by terrorist groups like Hamas, which are walled off from the population they want to genocide?
      When 90% of a population group is unwilling to coexist with Israelis, then building a wall to keep them apart is better for everyone involved. Well, all the non-terrorists, at least.

    76. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sociopaths are the ones using drones to bomb weddings.

      Uh... The people using the drones are the ones asking for an AI to tell them "Even though the local informant said this was a training camp, it looks more like a wedding".

      So now it's down to "shoot them all, let the AI sort them out" kind of decisions, placing the moral blame on the programmers? With disclaimers like "Google Bomb is not an automated killing machine, a human dictator always needs to keep two hands on the red button"?

    77. Re: Of course by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "FTFY" my ass.

      There is nothing sociopathic about wanting to avoid your lifes work to directly go into creating weapons for war.

      It might be idealistic. It might even be naive. But its not the mark of a sociopath.

    78. Re:Of course by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      IMSHO there are no governments with legitimate aims, AFAIC all government aims are illegitimate, bar none. If an aim is legitimate it wouldn't be a government one.

      People who have principles (precious principles) understand at least some of it better than you do. They are far from being sociopaths, they are humanists, they distrust government much more than individuals and they are correct in that.

    79. Re:Of course by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      More recently, the blood has been in Paris and London and other cities throughout Europe.

      Drops next to the pools of blood spilled by NATO countries in the middle east. Libya went from being the most prosperous country on the very crowded African continent to having open-air slave markets - and you're surprised at the blowback?

    80. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, after the first mistaken wedding bombing, lots of Drone operators were told to be more careful. Possibly trained a little. But they mostly had to help themselves pay better attention. With an AI, the drones could pulled offline, the AI run through an additional thousand images and videos of weddings until it was acceptably assimilated into its training, and then uploaded into the drones. No self-training needed. AI weapons will always be better.

    81. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah easy mistake my bro but Israel used to mot be a thing, and Palestine was where it is now lemme see if I can find a link 1 sec really you're gonna find this to be v interesting.....

    82. Re:Of course by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Here's the issue: Google does a lot of data slurping by default. Even if Google is as you say - super careful with how data is stored, one of the few companies who tell law enforcement "warrant or gtfo", and utilize it in ways that are above reproach...there is zero guarantee they will remain that way.

      Imagine how much data Google has on you. Now, imagine Google was bought out by the worst possible person - Donald Trump, George Soros, 90's era Bill Gates, whoever it is for you...now think of all your Google-owned data in that person's hands. THAT is the problem. The database exists, and eventually, it will end up in the wrong hands. The only way to avoid that is to avoid populating the database.

    83. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are nations. IE, the question is whether those nations exist or what nation they are connected to, a topic well within the scope of international interest. And in Iran's case, that's an entirely different topic.

      The right of a nation to determine which city within its borders is its capital city is one of the most fundamental rights that a country can have. Outsiders can chirp as much as they want, and they do, but the decision of what city is the capital is Israel's to make.

    84. Re:Of course by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Having software that determines you are not a target or a threat does indeed prevent someone from bleeding out or losing limbs. Not to mention it's helping kill people who plant car bombs, which leads to even more people bleeding out and losing limbs... all around a huge net benefit. AI in weapons work saves lives, there is literally no downside.

      You don't know the number of suicides that have resulted from embarrassing revelations to others thanks to deep tracking of what you do online.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    85. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Have you been paying for oxygen? It sounds like you might be getting taken advantage of.

    86. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it easy snow flake. Did you forget to take your meds yet?

    87. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So then, with all that specialized training and assessment, I guess we're forced to assume that all of the drone strikes on weddings are deliberate and premeditated.

    88. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making Arabs exempt from the draft - that right there is racism. No, I'm not joking. They're excluding a segment of the population from a bonding experience that ties the Jewish citizens together and makes them much more likely to identify with the state at a personal level.

      Make the Arabs serve, no exceptions. In integrated units side by side with their Jewish compatriots. Then Israel will be in a position to start building a reasonably equal society. Right now it's the only civilized country on earth that still has racism baked into its constitution.

    89. Re:Of course by eclectro · · Score: 1

      And those drones definitely won't "have any notion of right and wrong".

      Maybe those drones don't need a notion of right or wrong. Maybe those drones could assess a battlefield situation better than a human - and prevent the loss of life. Both by preventing friendly fire casualties and/or by fighting more efficiently so that there does not need to be needless opposition deaths or collateral damage.

      So the protesters and others in this thread assume that the drones will bring about more war, when the opposite is just as likely, if not more true.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    90. Re: Of course by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Pitch your idea to the pentagon. If it's as good as you seem to think it us you could get yourself a very lucrative contract.

      Only if he has a senator on his board of directors.

    91. Re:Of course by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.

      Well... do you think Presidents, Senators and House Representatives grow on trees?

      They don't grow on trees but they should be hung from the branches as traitors in most cases. Just do it in pairs so that it's bipartisan, there are plenty on both sides to keep it up for a long while.

    92. Re: Of course by macraig · · Score: 1

      "People whose ideology disagrees with your own" is not the definition of sociopath.

    93. Re: Of course by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      If you had no idea how to think critically, yes, I suppose you would make exactly that kind of assumption.

    94. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..oh, and never mind the fact that these so-called 'AIs' (which are pseudo-intelligent at best, not real Artificial Intelligence) will inevitably make mistakes, which will lead to non-combatants being targeted and killed. That's at the core of why these people are 'quitting in protest', and that's why people make a moral choice to not work on weapons of war.

      If anything, mature "AIs" will be far better at determining enemy-from-friendly than humans.

      Want to limit collateral damage? Mature the targeting systems.

    95. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, terrorist scum. The Israelis who committed those crimes went to jail. The Palestinians who do the same get large cash rewards.

    96. Re: Of course by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Consider this: You're the only one who has mentioned his name in the entire thread. Now, what did you just learn about yourself?

    97. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the men in government have demonstrated that support for legitimate aims are abused for illegitimate aims. So the premise of legitimate government aims is specifically rejected not due to the observer being a sociopath, but the because the men in government are.

    98. Re:Of course by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As I said, sociopaths.

            Weapons systems are absolutely necessary for you to be able to sit around whining about how tough you have it, while perfectly safe and warm with mind-boggling technology all around you.

            And such a great humanitarian they are, basically refusing to work on a system *intended to reduce collateral damage*. You know what, it would be one hell of a lot cheaper and easier, and well within technology, to just carpet bomb. But no, they want to make the strikes more precise so they *don't have to to that*. So by all means, great heroes, refuse to participate, we still have to get the right guys and any additional collateral damage be damned to salve your precious fucking conscience.

            No one says they are supposed to work against their own conscience, they can absolutely do whatever they feel comfortable with. Apparently they either don't care about innocent bystanders getting killed unnecessarily, or they are such complete sociopaths that their own precious widdle sensibilities are more important than serving the country doing more-or-less the same work they would be doing anyway.

            Or they are sociopaths who just don't care that we might have to nuke a city instead of put one round of 30-06 or one missile into a terrorist camp and only get the bad guys.

    99. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they are really good at bombing weddings!

    100. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elections can also work

    101. Re:Of course by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Who is kidding who, of course corporations can send people with guns to raid you and that is across the globe. The hollywood pigopolists ordered Joe Biden, to attack Kim Dotcom in New Zealand and the corporate tool dutifully complied, dropped the New Zealands government hind legs into the US governments gum boots and proceed to fuck the shit out of the New Zealand justice system. Corporations control governments or have you not noticed, especially the US government, no government more controlled by corporations with ex-corporate executives corrupt government departments, all US government departments.

      The bigger the corporation the worse they become and the only limit on them is government, so they seek to control government.

      I salute those ex-Google employees and their adherence to their honour and integrity, nobody should be forced to work for death industries, the killers of people for profit corporations. They definitely did the right thing and they even took the additional step and sought to promote that sound activity. Why are governments now forced to contract out death designs to not military industrial complex companies because the top people do not want to work for death, murder and dismemberment, do no want to kill for profit, do not want to stain their existence with mass murder, to soil their spirit and they did it publicly because they want to help save others, not just the victims of death machines but also those who condemn themselves by designing and making them (you know the purpose, you know the types of people who will command and use them and so you own a part of it).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    102. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creep defends being a creep. What a surprise.

    103. Re:Of course by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Their objection is over supporting the use of drones at all.

      Drones separate the operator from the target to an extent that seems to lead to a lot of innocent people being murdered. They don't want to be involved in that, and perhaps understand that AI isn't going to be used to reduce these mistakes but rather look for more stuff to blow up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    104. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Russia

    105. Re:Of course by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You are seriously suggesting that these guys in Afghanistan and Iraq represent such a threat that nukes would be required?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    106. Re: Of course by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      And if you had no idea how to answer the question other than proving his point, I suppose you would give that kind of a non answer.

    107. Re: Of course by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      No, now when the terrorists want to hold a big meeting, they all dress appropriately for a wedding.

    108. Re: Of course by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Lines drawn by the European powers in the 19th century do not constutute historical national boundaries. The area now known as Israel has a complex history. There have been christians and jews living there for a very long time, not just islamics.

      The Arabs are nomadic, in ways their territorial claims are similar to those of American Indians. For better or for worse, the land claims are complex.

      And anyway, the Jordanians keep quite a few of the 'Palestinians' penned up in camps, to use as a weapon against Israel. They will not allow the refugees to absorb into their country. Who are the humanitarians, again?

    109. Re: Of course by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      You comment is insightful, but GP commenter is just going to beat on their bongo drums and recite a 'what is evil?' bromide.

    110. Re:Of course by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      The fact that my comment was modded as "Offtopic" should prove that there is too much emotion for this debate to be rational in the least. The word "apartheid" has been used a lot when discussing Israel and her Arab citizens, but it is, again, an appeal to emotion. Until people start looking at the facts, there will not be a chance for a rational dialogue on the topic. Sadly, that means a lot of lies will be accepted as facts.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    111. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nsa work won't go down pretty with europeans. (the other major source of income for google)

    112. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd ask for a Citation on your assertion, but you and I both know that you don't have one, because you are literally just making shit up (as always).

    113. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure.. It's telling that you are defending the "people" purposefully firing rockets at schools and population centers to maximize civilian casualties.

      Fuck off.

    114. Re:Of course by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      So you want the occupied to participate in their own oppression, occupation, and ethnic cleansing. What a charming fellow you are.

    115. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to read the above post aloud, in an increasingly perturbed Jack Nicholson accent. Then it makes sense.

    116. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're living in a fairytale world if they don't think Google's tool haven't already been used for that purpose. People gather intelligence, plan strikes, and communicate for nefarious or tactical purposes using Google products and services evert day. Not to mention that they themselves mine and retain data that they claim to not be collecting (such as Android user location data from phones without sim cards with location services disabled) and will hand that over to the government when issued a warrant. The responsible thing to do would be delete that data immediately upon analysing it or never collect it.

    117. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we're not. Well-informed AC says: the work was about small scale offline analysis. Worth discussion--and there has been a lot of discussion at all levels of the company--but the outcome was satisfactory to me.

      I note the article didn't say how many people quit. In a company of Google's size it was inevitable there would be a few.

    118. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or elect a guy like Trump, and pretty much destroy 70+ years of work from real Americans that built this modern era.

    119. Re:Of course by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Today, corporations can be pretty evil, but they don't generally go out of their way to kill innocent people.

      No of course not, that would be ridiculous.

      They will however kill inocent prople if they're in the way, if they can make money doing so or if it's simply a consequence of doing business a bit more cheaply.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    120. Re: Of course by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Adding an AI means there is now an unbiased process looking for alternative interpretations.

      Since when is AI unbiased.?

      AI/Machine learning is very very very much not unbiased. The most simple and common and annoying case is unbalanced classes. If you want to build a classifier to classify data as A or B and have 2x the number of samples for B, then most algorithms will rapidly head in the direction of classifying everything as B because they quickly get 70% correct, so that's where all the gradients point.

      That's the most simple case and it still has to be mitigated. From there it gets worse and more subtle. These algorithms are excellent at finding correlations in data. And correlation is not causation as any fule kno.

      The upshot of that is the results tend to reflect biases in your training data, and have a hard time finding conditional independence which is what you often need. People aren't good at that too.

      For a simple example let's say 95% of te terrorists you capture wear Casio F91-W watches. A dumb algorithm (or person) might assume then that if you see someone with an F91-W there's a high chance they're a terrorist. What they missed in the data is that if you capture people at random there's still a 95% chance they're wearing a Casio F91-W. An algorithm (or person) might notice they've just got 95% classifier performance on training data without realising the results are utter bullshit.

      AI is biased as fuck.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    121. Re: Of course by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Drones do not have any needs already.

      They do not "need" humans exactly as my car does not "need" me to gas it up every week. It does not care, it's a fricking car

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    122. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. but as far as i can tell there never was a shortage on those kind of people.

    123. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a part time pacifist--in my developing years I attended a church that is pacifist-- I would go further than Rick Schumann. Rather than looking only at the inevitable killing of innocents in war, the values I was taught hold that all killing is immoral, and that cooperation of any sort with war making--without which war related killings would not occur, is immoral.
      In my 20's my position has changed, to accepting violence in an immediate situation of self-defense and other-defense. With a lot of ad-hoc and pragmatic decision making thrown in. Or situational ethics, as opposed to a simple or absolute set of rules.
      And yes, the major problem with pacifism is that it works best if all participants are pacifists.
      On the other hand, take the Israeli-Palestinian situation...

    124. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same way as there is apartheid between North Koreans and South Koreans?

      The word "apartheid" is used deliberately to invoke connotations of South Africa, where citizens within a nation were treated differently on the basis of their race. In Israel, "apartheid" means that a country treats its citizens (regardless of race) differently to non-citizens. Which is pretty much what a country is *for*.

    125. Re:Of course by shanen · · Score: 1

      One of the few comments to touch on the kernel of the problem, but no direct mention of corporate cancers like the google. Or to put it in religious terms:

      "There is no gawd but Profit, and the google must become Profit's #1 prophet."

      That's what the program wants the AI to do.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    126. Re:Of course by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The sociopaths are the ones using drones to bomb weddings.

      Uh... The people using the drones are the ones asking for an AI to tell them "Even though the local informant said this was a training camp, it looks more like a wedding".

      Nah the drone will see a large group of people standing around looking suspicious and deliver them a gift of its own.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    127. Re:Of course by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the people who can't afford insurance because data mining detected they were searching for things which similar people who used a lot of insurance also searched for. Or those who were pushed into sugar addictions from tricky advertising, developed diabetes, and then lost limbs.

      Provide one example of that happening.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    128. Re: Of course by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      He didn't ask a question.

    129. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are such a fucking clown. Trust us we know Where you work. You never get done fucking reminding us. I guess itâ(TM)s some sort of humble brag like your soldier statement. Nobody gives a shit. All we know is every time Google comes up you come around rallying the troops. Itâ(TM)s pathetic

    130. Re: Of course by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Was clearly implying a question. I'm surprised you didn't notice it.

    131. Re: Of course by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It was a stupid statement, so whatever question you think was implied is equally stupid. You can easily demonstrate it's stupidity by just supplying it to a different field:

      "So then, with all the specialized training and assessment which doctors undergo, I guess we're forced to assume that all botched surgeries are deliberate and premeditated."

    132. Re:Of course by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.

      "We" are? I'm not, who is this "we" you are talking about? They're free to leave google if they wish, but good luck explaining to the next employer why you left and why you won't leave them when one of their clients goes against their "principles" since they seem to be offended by everything. I would love to be in the interview to hear that!

      Interviewer: Your resume says you worked at Google most recently, why did you leave them?
      Snowflake: I didn't like one of google's clients
      Interviewer: ok, what about our clients, do you like them?
      Snowflake: oh yes, your clients are fine.
      Interviewer: today they might be, but how do I know we won't add a client in the future you dislike and you'll leave us the same way you left google?
      Snowflake: uh.... I.... won't?
      Interviewer: thank you for coming in today, we'll let you know what we decide

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    133. Re:Of course by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Good ol' doublethink, Palestine is an Israeli territory except when it would be more convenient if it were a sovereign nation. Looks like apartheid? Sovereign nation! Should Palestine have sovereignty? Israeli territory!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    134. Re:Of course by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      We're talking about AI being used to control drones.

      It's a slippery slope.

      What did you think all this image scanning and facial recognition would be used for someday? Of course it will be used for law enforcement and military purposes. The creation of internet was funded by the US Dept of Defense, so maybe people offended by the US military should stop using the internet too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    135. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations can sue and lobby, which neatly makes the government do all those things for them without their precious corporate image getting tarnished.

    136. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the sociopath then, making AI-controlled killer-bots. Sociopath! You Are the Miserable One!

    137. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is "proper analysis", and with it, isn't that part of controlling killer-bots?

      Hypocrite!

    138. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which assertion? That drones separate the operator from the target to a degree that increases friendly fire incidents and/or targeting mistakes (oops, we thought it was a terrorist leadership meeting; turned out to be a wedding party)? Or the assertion that using AI for image classification is going to increase the number of drone bombings?

      The first certainly happens; I recall reading some news articles on the topic a while back. If you think that a tool that makes it easier to use a weapon means that we're going to use it less...I just don't know what to say to you.

      Relevant articles:
      http://www.businessinsider.com/did-we-just-kill-a-kid-nicola-abe-der-spiegel-brandon-bryant-2012-12
      http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/06/russian-us-air-strikes-in-syria-caused-mass-civilian-deaths-un-says.html
      https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/world/meast/yemen-u-s-drone-wedding/

      I'm sure if you search on the topic, you can find more. It's been covered quite a bit.

    139. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > which will lead to non-combatants being targeted and killed

      *more* non-combatants being killed. It already happens quite a bit.

    140. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious of your opinion of how we should treat pharmacists who feel that abortion is murder and aiding it violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

    141. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorism is crime, not warfare. You "defend the nation" from invasion (or other interference) by other nations. That rhetoric doesn't apply here.

      You arrest criminals (or summarily execute them in the 21st century).

    142. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before accusing me of hypocrisy, you should establish that I actually hold the views you attribute to me. I'm on the side of saying that Palestine should have sovereignty (possibly separately for the Gaza Strip and West Bank). Note that it has elected governments, representatives in international bodies, etc., etc.

      In this view, though, Palestine is a brutally apartheid state (try being a Jew in Palestine, especially compared with being an Arab in Israel!), making war on its neighbour in violation of the Geneva conventions (how many of those throwing firebombs are wearing uniforms?), and its voting citizens are collectively responsible for acts of terrorism sponsored by its government.

    143. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that it might be a wedding... So we'd have to make sure the AI could recognize those right?

      How about the idea that it's a terrorist meeting colocated with a wedding, playing on our insane ideals so we won't blow them up? Terrorists have learned that human shields are cheap and effective countermeasures against our superior technology and combat troops, because we don't have the stomach for collateral damage.

    144. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because the Jews and Arabs are best mates, not?
      Seriously, stfu.

    145. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure how this action makes them more sociopathic than before. They were sociopaths when they agreed to build systems that fucked their users over for profit, too.

      As for not wanting to participate in the creation of an AI-based weapons system, I actually applaud that. So many dystopian Sci-Fi futures are starting to look less like fantasy and more like real-world possibilities.

    146. Re:Of course by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Libya peaked at 5th most prosperous country in Africa.

      Stop making shit up.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    147. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were all in when it was a creepy private data mining operation, but do something to support the legitimate aims of government and defend the nation, and it goes against their precious principles.

          We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.

      Caring about whether or not technology you help build is directly involved in the more efficient and unobserved killing of people is sort of the opposite of being a sociopath.

    148. Re:Of course by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It's not a slope and it's not slippery. That implies a fallacy, like it's not going to happen. News flash: It's inevitable, like gravity. It IS happening, both here and abroad.

      Pretending like it's not going to happen if you throw down your access card and walk out is juvenile and counterproductive, unless your aim is to have the Chinese, Russians, and their third world cat's-paws get this destabilizing technology first.

      The question is, do you want a seat at the table? How about a hand on the rudder? Even better, root access and foreknowledge of how the systems are constructed from the ground up?

      Further thought reveals, I am begging the question that they left due to not wanting to develop the tech at all. Maybe they are more worried about Google having the source code and schematics for such a system, and much more so than they are about the government having it. Ponder that for while and try not to piss yourself.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    149. Re:Of course by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Then the day will come where, instead of military personnel choosing to kill innocent men, women and children, the drone will make the decision and the military will say, "Oops, machine error. Couldn't be helped. Not our fault."

      --
      J
    150. Re:Of course by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      The only reason corporations don't do those things is because it's cheaper to outsource them.

      You thought we invaded Iraq because why? Plenty of people got their doors kicked in by men with guns in that corporate boondoggle, guaranteed.

      The only difference between fascism and our current system is the tenuous smokescreen between corporate and government establishments and the ignorance of the little people.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    151. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Legitimate aims" my ass. Drone warfare is a crime against humanity.

    152. Re: Of course by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      There is nothing sociopathic about wanting to avoid your lifes work to directly go into creating weapons for war.

      True; if you're referring to video analysis as "weapons of war" you're psychotic rather than sociopathic.

    153. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. Wish I had mod points.
      I didn't see any mention of controlling drones with AI. Apparently, these offended folks are ok with drones releasing weapons without proper analysis of the images - possibly endangering innocents.

      Uh, I don't see that drones releasing weapons are assumed to be a given. Exactly to not aid the slippery slope towards assuming that as a given, the Google workers resigned. Frankly, I am annoyed at how lackadaisical right-wing Americans are about killing born life as opposed to unborn life.

    154. Re: Of course by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Anything can look out of context when taken out of context...

      Who made the rule that questions can't be stupid?

      "So then, with all the specialized training and assessment which doctors undergo, I guess we're forced to assume that all botched surgeries are deliberate and premeditated?"

      No that's a stupid assumption, the training may not be as good as it should be.
      No that's absurd, no matter how good someones training is they can still make mistakes.
      Yes it's a little known fact that lizard people deliberately and premeditatedly kill off certain dangerous people.

      So then, with all that specialized training and assessment, I guess we're forced to assume that all of the drone strikes on weddings are deliberate and premeditated?

      Same answers work for both.

    155. Re:Of course by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      that's right, the same a.i that classifies me the same a.i.that runs people over i agree but google was dead a while after facebook died you'll see

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    156. Re:Of course by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Libya had the highest standard of living which is the same thing as "most prosperous" for me. You could call the USA the most prosperous country in the world based on GDP - but I'd call that a failed system when half the country is poor with the top three billionaires having the same amount of wealth that they do.

  4. Won't do nothing by barbariccow · · Score: 0

    Why did they quit? Did they think noone would step up and do it instead of them? There's no shortage of developers out there.. All top brass sees is maybe a 6 month setback hiring and training, and yeah that sucks, but that's not going to institute change.

    1. Re:Won't do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Google's best developers are paid a king's ransom and are constantly fielding better offers to leave.

      If they don't like the govt and want to leave, great. That's the free economy at work. Note that none of them are taking a risk; the people leaving have obviously lined up new jobs, and are likely making more than they were before.

    2. Re:Won't do nothing by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      If they're related to this project, is that necessarily true?

      I keep reading about a shortage in AI people that will take a few years to be met.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Won't do nothing by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Emotions don't have to make sense.

      They could just get a job at Apple. Apple has a clause in their terms of services against military use.

      All top brass sees is maybe a 6 month setback hiring and training,

      A 6 months delay before Skynet, I'll take it!

      No, but seriously, even if their departure doesn't delay anything, they could just be happier going to work for someone else.

      They obviously can't control what Google does, but they can at least control what they personally do as individuals. And just like Google can easily replace them, they can also easily replace their employer.

    4. Re:Won't do nothing by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That is primarily advertising BS designed to maximize the streams of new programmers that will work for peanuts in the hopes of getting it big. If Google were so dependent on a single programmer, they would be out of business by now.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:Won't do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why bother standing with your morals if they don't completely change the thing you think is wrong?

      If everyone thought like you there'd never be any change.

    6. Re:Won't do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, to really get change you need to arrange it so that your AI causes a powerful laser to target a giant ball of popcorn in your advisor's house, resulting in the mass of popcorn popping the house off of its footings.

    7. Re:Won't do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By this logic, we might as well all become murderers because, hey, somebody's going to do it anyway.

    8. Re:Won't do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has a clause in their terms of services against military use.

      So does that mean there are no MacBook pros in the Pentagon? I wonder if anyone has gov't issued iPhones in the Pentagon/Department of Defense? What if a sailor uses an iPod while working out in the gym on an aircraft carrier?

  5. Google branching out.. by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now they'll be a defense contractor like Boeing et al. While I can understand a company wanting to make money how does this line up with "Do no harm?"

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Google branching out.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First of all, it's "Don't be evil."

      You seem to be leaving a lot of your opinions unexpressed.
      Is it evil for a company to contract with the Department of Defense?
      Should the military have to invent all of its technology itself?
      Is it wrong for the military to use algorithms to analyze reconnaissance imagery?
      Should the USA have no military?
      Do the answers depend on which political party controls Congress or the presidency?

    2. Re:Google branching out.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think their motto was "Don't be Evil."

    3. Re:Google branching out.. by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 0

      Should the USA have no military?

      Only if we're following the constitution, which states that we should have no standing army in time of peace. Which we're not. (And if you're going to mention the "war on terror", first find me a congressional declaration of war (and i don't mean an "authorization to use military force")).

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    4. Re:Google branching out.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this day and age it's not hard to actually read the Constitution. There's no excuse for your particular ignorance.
      The only thing in the Constitution that has anything in common with your claim is in Article I Section 2 clause 3, forbidding the states to do that without the consent of Congress.
      Article I Section 8 clauses 12-13 grant Congress the powers to raise and support Armies, and to provide and maintain a Navy.
      Article II Section 2 clause 1 declares the President to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.

      I sympathize with the criticism that the federal government has far exceeded its constitutionally-granted powers, but a standing military ain't it.

    5. Re:Google branching out.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a stupid take, and you should feel stupid for making this stupid and likely incorrect assumption.

    6. Re:Google branching out.. by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      While I can understand [Google] wanting to make money how does this line up with "Do no harm?"

      "First, do no harm," is the physicians's motto (part of the Hippocratic Oath, or Hypocritic Oath for those who understand the irony). Google's motto is, "Don't be evil."

    7. Re:Google branching out.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you're referring to the clause that says "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." - which is a far cry from "we should have no standing army in time of peace"

    8. Re:Google branching out.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First, do no harm," is the physicians's motto (part of the Hippocratic Oath, or Hypocritic Oath for those who understand the irony). Google's motto is, "Don't be evil."

      Was. They retired it a few years ago. It was probably the best piece of PR Marissa Mayer was responsible for while at Google but it interfered with business decisions like this. Not really compatible with the financial obligations to shareholders.

  6. Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand the objection to precision drone strikes. Would the objects prefer to just fire a missile in the general area and kill everyone in the vicinity? Would they prefer dumb drones that can't determine who the target is and kills the wrong people?

    Why is it a problem to have more precise tools that can reduce the collateral damage.

    1. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

      How about not having drone strikes at all. Stop helping to create terrorists by supporting terroristic states in the Middle East, and live our lives in peace.

    2. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You go find Ahmed's cave and tell him to stop killing infidels, then we will our part.

    3. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      I think their point is that a human should be behind any kills a drone makes.

    4. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're more likely to be killed slipping in a bathtub or crossing the street than in a terrorist attack in the US. We grossly over-reacted after 9/11. What we should have done is blockaded, sanctioned, and embargoed Saudi Arabia, the source of funding for the perpetrators that caused 9/11. Would have been cheap AND effective, even if we'd have felt some pain as far as oil prices in the short run.

      But no, we were just itching to use the toys that we didn't have a chance to use during the Cold War. We wasted a few trillion and made the world LESS safe.

    5. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States on Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage. Additional people died of 9/11 related cancer and respiratory diseases in the months and years following the attacks.

    6. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Trump's the one doing it. They didn't mind when Obama did it, because shut up.

    7. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the objection to precision drone strikes.

      Because it's a terrorist activity.

    8. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're more likely to be killed slipping in a bathtub or crossing the street than in a terrorist attack in the US. We grossly over-reacted after 9/11.

      Do you think that safety is because terrorists don't want to attack on U.S. soil?

      Afghanistan is lucky it didn't get nuked after 9/11.

    9. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is still a human there. Maven is just an object-recognition system, that highlights objects in (usually low-resolution) drone video feeds. For example, it'll identify whether the 20-pixel object in the back of a pickup truck is actually a goat or a machine gun. It's still a human who decides whether to actually launch an attack or not.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Yes. I think it's because they don't want to attack. Borders are relatively open. Weapons are readily available (if not guns, then cars or knives). Yet the number of terror attacks in the US is statistically tiny.

    11. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you think that safety is because terrorists don't want to attack on U.S. soil?

      The US response to 9/11 wasn't a deterrent to terrorists, it was a deterrent to living in a country that has resources the US wants control of. Given the levels of bullshit coming out of the US administration at the time, it was just a matter of time before they found an excuse.

    12. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Stolovaya · · Score: 2

      Thanks for pointing that out. I should've RTFA.

    13. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you can see, the problem of hypocrisy and ignorance you speak of envelops us on all sides.

      You're also more likely to be killed slipping in a bathtub or crossing the street than in a mass shooting, but that won't stop the leftists from wanting to stamp out the 2nd amendment.

    14. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      blockaded, sanctioned, and embargoed Saudi Arabia

      Until....when exactly? What would the end game of that be?

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    15. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Until they were either completely bankrupt and unable to exert financial power outside their own borders (freeze foreign accounts as well) or regime change was facilitated.

    16. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of these aren't even drones, just RC copters.

    17. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100%. Why exactly did we invade Iraq again? Cuz 'Merica.

    18. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're also more likely to be killed slipping in a bathtub or crossing the street than a shooting. Doesn't stop all the gun-grabbers from coming after the Second Amendment, though...

    19. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you that would have resulted in a war....I doubt the outcome would have been any different than the current situation.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    20. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      At least it would have dealt with the source of the problem -- Saudi Arabia and its combination of crazy religious zealotry and free money from oil.

    21. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      How about not having drone strikes at all. Stop helping to create terrorists by supporting terroristic states in the Middle East, and live our lives in peace.

      We're trying to do that right now by withdrawing from any and all support from Iran - a huge sponsor of terror - and we're being castigated for it. So do we support them, or not?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably the quitters find drone strikes universally abhorrent, making them pacifists. If there is a sound human rights argument for pacifism as commonly practiced, I have never heard it. Pacifism is a form of oppression because it attempts to inflict the inevitable consequences of its metaphysical beliefs on all affected by its adoption.

    23. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Agreed.....but they aren't the only ones, you'd have to include the Iranians as well as Afghanistan.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    24. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Iran has no real fight with the US (other than blustering), nor does it sponsor attacks in the US. If anything, a strong Iran will help keep Saudi Arabia (the real problem) in check.

    25. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      It's still a human who decides whether to actually launch an attack or not.

      For now.
      Self-driving cars also have a human operator for the time being.

    26. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't understand the objection to precision drone strikes. Would the objects prefer to just fire a missile in the general area and kill everyone in the vicinity? Would they prefer dumb drones that can't determine who the target is and kills the wrong people?

      Yes, they would. You see, their real objection to the military has nothing to do with innocents being killed. They just hate the very idea of the military as a whole. Even if every single strike took out some horrible monster of a man, and didn't harm a single innocent, they would still be opposed to it. The problem, in that case, is that they would have no way to rationally voice their opposition, so they need civilian casualties. They need weddings being blown up; the more the better. It lets them rant and rave about how horrible the military is; anything which reduces the civilian body count runs contrary to their interests.

    27. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Other than regularly calling for the death of America, sponsoring terror including the USS Cole and other attacks on US citizens and property, and detaining US citizens on fake charges, yeah Iran is perfectly cool with the US!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    28. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Oh, and there's this call to bomb the new US embassy in Jerusalem with a $100,000 prize to the first one to bomb it...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    29. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which resources in Afghanistan does the US want control of?

    30. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Death to America = bluster, and more bluster.

      Cole was an attack against a military target, not civilian terrorism within the US. Frankly, it could have been avoided if the US Navy was used for domestic defense, not parked in places where it's not welcome.

    31. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Why did we spend good money on moving it, again? Since when is appeasing religious crazies in Israel (and their Christian Right loony supporters in the US) a matter of importance?

    32. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're arguing the benefit side only. Sure, avoiding mass shootings is kind of a marginal benefit like terrorism.
      The point you are missing is that people against the 2nd amendment see NO COST in removing it. That might be disputable, but I don't think you can claim this is an OBVIOUSLY insane notion.
      In contrast, that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars had no cost would be on obviously insane thing to claim though.
      It's called cost/benefit for a reason...
      And I'm pretty is sure if the same amount of money spent on the wars would have been spent on gun safety (e.g. you can get a safe for your gun for free! You can get safety training for free!) it would have done a whole lot more good. Even without "coming after" the second amendment.

    33. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was law since 1995 that the US would have US embassy in Jerusalem.

    34. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did we spend good money on moving it, again?

      The same reason Germany doesn't have it's lone embassy in the US position right in downtown Akron.

      You put the embassy in or near the capitol.

      The Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed by Congress in 1995, required the United States to relocate its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by December 31, 1999 and that Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of Israel. The Embassy remained in Tel Aviv because the Act also allowed for the President to "delay the implementation of the law indefinitely if the move presents national security concerns."[24] Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama regularly invoked the clause, delaying the move of the embassy to Jerusalem.

      So, in 1995 Congress (with a signature from Bill Clinton) recognized that the capitol of Israel was Jerusalem, but then it took 22 years to act on that decision.

    35. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha .. yea and you can stop the burglars and muggers and car thieves and white collar criminals by dismantling our police force so we can all live our lives in peace. Good luck with your state.

    36. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what if it's a goat operating a machine gun, eh there smart guy? ;)

    37. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You can ask that religious crazy named Hillary Clinton about why we should put the embassy in the capitol of the country.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    38. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      How about blowing up our embassy in 1998? is that a military target, not a civilian terror attack on US soil?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    39. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Sadly, all American politicians have to pander to religious shitheels who are willing to start a war to prove a point.

    40. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      At least it would have dealt with the source of the problem -- Saudi Arabia and its combination of crazy religious zealotry and free money from oil.

      Regime change/revolution/decay of government didn't have that affect when we overthrew the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. Libya turned out pretty badly, and Egypt hasn't been in a great state either.

    41. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 2

      It was lucky you came along to explain their 'real objection' to the military. You really showed that strawman who's boss.

      Another side of the argument, are the people than think that wars should be messy. It should be a difficult choice whether or not to start one. Save them for the big stuff. Once they become too clean they become too easy to justify they become too easy to start. Yea sure take out that horrible monster of a man. And once they are all gone, do you take out the bad monsters of a man, and then the monster of a man, and then the bad man, etc. Little Rocket Man causing trouble again, assassinate. Putin getting into your business, assassinate. Kim dotcom downloading all your movies, assassinate. People in other countries telling Americans how to vote, assassinate. People in other countries telling you things you'd rather not hear, assassinate.
      But I totally kicked the shit out of my strawman.

    42. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by houghi · · Score: 1

      just a reminder: Going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan was supported by many countries in the world and was due to the attacks. Irak has nothing to do with any of it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    43. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blockaded, sanctioned and embargoed Saudi Arabia? LOL. Our European "allies" would have loved to step in. We had to threaten to destroy Germany's economy through Dieselgate to force them to keep the sanctions against Russia up, and we have to threaten them with heavy sanctions to force them out of any deal with Iran.

    44. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Another side of the argument, are the people than think that wars should be messy.

      That's not "another side"; that's exactly the dipshits I was talking about. And you called it a strawman.

    45. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This moralizing over specific scenarios is sperglord spiralling.

      Maven allows constant unattended tracking of everything on a large scale. For example it could build copresence graphs, or track a target you see now backwards in time very quickly. I don't think the issue is "killing people." It's more, the power to kill the right people, and build a non-transparent secret police state within democratic systems that slowly grows into a parallel invisible authoritarian empire that is impossible to dislodge short of a holocaust of chaos.

      This is basically the path we have already walked down, quite far. We could, at this point, perhaps still choose to leave the path, by choosing more death from acceptance that terrorists will succeed because we restrained our police state, ie. more "killing civilians."

      "Death is immoral" is a juvenile way to approach questions of the military. It is like people who say, "if not for men there would be no war." It's both lazy and hysterical, total nonsense.

      Maven is a huge moral issue. "But muh DEATH" is not the reason.

      The questions I have are:

      1. what's the effective way to influence politics by withholding your talent?
      2. what's the correct amount of influence to have? Too little is irresponsible. Too much is undemocratic.

      I don't know the answers.

      It would seem like one's basically always entitled to withhold their own talent, but with large private clouds, proprietary datacenter networks and special GPU variants that aren't available outside the cloud, it becomes less clear. You're forcing a collective decision on hundreds of thousands of technical people up and down the stack. Because of the "vegan problem" a powerful monopoly being steered by a tiny minority to crush a vulnerable customer is not just possible but the common scenario. It's clearer with net neutrality, the Cloudflare Problem that heckler's veto of DDoS has a lower barrier to entry than the natural monopsony of DDoS mitigation companies, and the Google Problem of censoring conservatives on Youtube and stealing the domain names of edgy bloggers. This is too much influence, while "just following orders" or "someone else would've done it so why not get paid" is too little.

      I do know that Microsoft is boasting of a "moral" decision not to get involved, but it's probably because they don't have the infrastructure to meet the bidding requirements while GOOG and AMZN do. I think that's what most of my negative reaction to this protest comes from. Most of this has the same virtue-signally view as the irrationally extreme recycling systems you see all over the locality where Google is headquartered.

      But the more relevant question is what's the right amount of influence for a craftsman to have on a democratic society.

    46. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So your claim is that opponents of the 2nd should get a pass because they're stupid? Just because they can't read history, doesn't mean they're correct.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    47. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We have _dealt_ with the source of the problem, we arranged the Sunni/Shia war to get rolling again.

      If it's played right, that war will simmer on, until oil is irrelevant and the whole arab world is back to starving.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    48. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Enable Sunni/Shia war to restart...worked great.

      We knew exactly what would happen, Cheney said as much when we didn't kill Saddam during the first Iraq war.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    49. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has slashdot come to where a baseless blast of pure flamebait gets modded +4 interesting?

      Can't you people all fuck off back to Voat or 4chan?

    50. Re:Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have kitchen knives which are only used to carve meat - for now.

      Who's to say what tomorrow will bring? Better safe than sorry, please surrender your kitchen knives.

    51. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Wanting wars to be messy and 'hating the very idea of the military as a whole' is in no way the same thing? Why would you think it was?

    52. Re: Better just to kill everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't your Facebook wall sweetie. Yelling "hurrrr flamebait troll blocked!!!" doesn't get you any points here.

  7. unemployable or passionate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd have a hard time employing folks who "publicly" resigned in protest. My reason is that they'd similarly judge my company, and bring the wrong type of attention to my company. EVERYONE asks, "so, why'd you quit?"

    That said, this type of move shows passion and putting their money where their mouth is. I really admire their conviction. Good for them.

    I personally think Google has lost their moral compass. Stuff I've read about SREs doing, in flagging "bad" people who visit, would be grounds for immediate dismissal as traditional companies. Maybe, someday, ad words stop subsidizing the Googlers who get to go off and play on cool stuff, and protest and stuff. Until then, this ad word supported fantasy land will continue.

    1. Re: unemployable or passionate? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      I want people that believe in our mission working at my company.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re: unemployable or passionate? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You only hire good liars?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Itâ(TM)s about time google cleaned out the snowflakes.

    Hopefully they will finish the job before they disappear up their own asshole.

  9. Resign or... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Is resignation (where you will be replaced) the solution, or is slowing the project down with barely passable code while leaking details to the press a better solution? Read about what Wernher Heisenberg (the real one, not the one from Breaking Bad) may have done with the German atom bomb program.

  10. None of them actually worked on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much you want to bet these employees were not engineers?

    1. Re:None of them actually worked on it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I bet they had an 'engineer' job title, but you're right.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. Have we passed Peak Google? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At this time we may begin to wonder whether we have passed Peak Google. Now that the company is large enough to get itself tangled up in politics, people from all political persuasions are watching its every move and looking for things to get upset about. The privacy issue could also be Google's biggest systemic problem, raising distrust in the company similar to IBM and Microsoft before it. We know how this ends -- a long, slow decline.

    Personally, I'm very happy with DuckDuckGo. In just a few years it went from completely-unusable to a perfectly fine Google alternative. And I certainly wouldn't trust my email to any server other than my own.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Have we passed Peak Google? by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Google is an advertising company. DuckDuckGo is a search service.

    2. Re: Have we passed Peak Google? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      No. DuckDuckGo is a nascent advertising company.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:Have we passed Peak Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duckduckgo is a game I played as a child you insensitive clot.

    4. Re:Have we passed Peak Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is an advertising company. DuckDuckGo is a search service.

      Sounds like a fucking difficult thing to make money from by legitimate means. Is that the point you're trying to make?

    5. Re:Have we passed Peak Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is an advertising company. DuckDuckGo is a search service.

      DuckDuckGo is a proxy to Bing, that's all. I don't understand what is the problem being solved over using Google through Tor.

    6. Re:Have we passed Peak Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is an advertising company. DuckDuckGo is a search service.

      And yet Google finds what I need nearly immediately and DuckDuckGo is pretty much useless for anything but the most basic searches. It's another one of those services that I'm surprised people push just due to how shitty it is. I don't really like the lack of privacy but the quality is like comparing a new iPhone/Galaxy and a Motorola A760,

  12. National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Slicker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While there are many classically liberal views I agree with, sometimes I think they just go too far. National defense is a critical industry for the survival of the country and, although the United States is not perfect and certain has its share of blame for tragedies in the world, global dominance by Russia or China would be far, far worse..

    In national defense, we've been falling backward (in relation to Russia and China) for the last few decades. Our main battle tanks are two generations behind Russia's and their air defense systems are also greatly enhanced. Iran successfully took over one of our most sophisticated drones and captured in, a couple years ago, using electronic warfare... Although we have the F-22 and the F-35 jets, we are falling in most other areas and are even behind in some.

    Also, the cost of war is very prohibitive for us as Congress requires subcontractors in virtually every state to fund any new project. Both potential enemies can easily outlast us in a protracted war, financially.

    And of course there is that AI in combat is not only inevitable but moving ahead at a very fast pace in both China and Russia. Although U.S. services still require a human in the loop of any kill decision, Russia absolutely does not. They are allowing agent kill decisions by default. This isn't a should we are shouldn't be ethical issue. This is about survival.

    1. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      In national defense, we've been falling backward (in relation to Russia and China) for the last few decades. Our main battle tanks are two generations behind Russia's and their air defense systems are also greatly enhanced. Iran successfully took over one of our most sophisticated drones and captured in, a couple years ago, using electronic warfare... Although we have the F-22 and the F-35 jets, we are falling in most other areas and are even behind in some.

      Also, the cost of war is very prohibitive for us as Congress requires subcontractors in virtually every state to fund any new project. Both potential enemies can easily outlast us in a protracted war, financially.

      The answer to this is to de-privatize defense. It's obviously just a money sinkhole and spending more won't fix it. Our own military has enough people with advanced degrees that actual military members can create next-generation technology. The only contractors needed might be for construction labor - but those can be employees, not giant firms. That would also help avoid creating another huge bureaucracy.

    2. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Our own military has enough people with advanced degrees that actual military members can create next-generation technology.

      Nope.

      One of the requirements of military service is "up or out". You either need to earn a promotion and move to a different station, or you're "asked" to retire. And you don't get promoted in-place, you get a new assignment with a higher rank.

      Those officers with advanced degrees do not get to work on the same program for 10 years...and usually not even 5 years. It's also not uncommon for officers to "temporarily" deploy in support of one of our many lovely wars. This constant churn of the development team would ensure that the new technology can't be developed.

    3. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by dj245 · · Score: 2

      While there are many classically liberal views I agree with, sometimes I think they just go too far. National defense is a critical industry for the survival of the country and, although the United States is not perfect and certain has its share of blame for tragedies in the world, global dominance by Russia or China would be far, far worse..

      In national defense, we've been falling backward (in relation to Russia and China) for the last few decades. Our main battle tanks are two generations behind Russia's and their air defense systems are also greatly enhanced. Iran successfully took over one of our most sophisticated drones and captured in, a couple years ago, using electronic warfare... Although we have the F-22 and the F-35 jets, we are falling in most other areas and are even behind in some.

      Also, the cost of war is very prohibitive for us as Congress requires subcontractors in virtually every state to fund any new project. Both potential enemies can easily outlast us in a protracted war, financially.

      And of course there is that AI in combat is not only inevitable but moving ahead at a very fast pace in both China and Russia. Although U.S. services still require a human in the loop of any kill decision, Russia absolutely does not. They are allowing agent kill decisions by default. This isn't a should we are shouldn't be ethical issue. This is about survival.

      Not saying you're wrong on all points, but are tanks on a battlefield strategically important anymore? It seems like they are going more and more the way of the battleship - an expensive asset that is difficult to justify based on how war has evolved.

      The power struggles in the world now are mainly economic and the use of strategic influence in parts of the world that have a net-positive return. This includes propaganda activities both on the ground and online. There are certainly proxy wars where weapons are fired but all-out war between major powers is bad for business, and neither Russian Oligarchs, the Chinese Communist Party, or Wall Street will accept a major conflict on superpower soil.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    4. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Our main battle tanks are two generations behind Russia's and their air defense systems are also greatly enhanced. Iran successfully took over one of our most sophisticated drones and captured in, a couple years ago, using electronic warfare... Although we have the F-22 and the F-35 jets, we are falling in most other areas and are even behind in some.

      Too bad none of that actually matters if it really was a defensive war. We have more than enough nuclear weapons to flatten any invading army, their military bases, sea ports, airports and factories, as well as that of their allies and trading partners, several times over.

    5. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

      In national defense, we've been falling backward (in relation to Russia and China) for the last few decades. Our main battle tanks are two generations behind Russia's and their air defense systems are also greatly enhanced. Iran successfully took over one of our most sophisticated drones and captured in, a couple years ago, using electronic warfare... Although we have the F-22 and the F-35 jets, we are falling in most other areas and are even behind in some.

      You really shouldn't believe everything you hear. Assuming Iran really did capture a US drone, what possible sense would it make to announce it? That's all propaganda. Or they are idiots beyond belief. If they really did capture the drone, announcing it would just make the US fix whatever problem they exploited so it can't be exploited again. I'd think if Iran really got the drone they would keep that highly classified so they could use it to get more drones in the future or exploit this captured knowledge is some special way down the road. Russia announces stuff all the time just like this that if it was true they really shouldn't announce it, but some folks always believe them anyway.

      Also, the cost of war is very prohibitive for us as Congress requires subcontractors in virtually every state to fund any new project. Both potential enemies can easily outlast us in a protracted war, financially.

      I can assure you that Russia cannot outlast the US financially - period. That is delusional. China could put up a stronger financial fight, but when US allies stop trading with them, they won't be doing so well. And about a billion people in India really do not want to live in a world where China runs the show, as but one example.

    6. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to this is to de-privatize defense.

      That's going to bite you in the ass when people like those ex-Google-employees make it into an administration and defund the military for some feelgood reason. It's harder to do longterm damage when your defense is diversified.

    7. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      A lot of fights in the DoD over who gets to put their feet on the foot rest: the civil servants or the contractors.

      Hard to mistake any of it for protecting much of anyone :(

    8. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by GeekBoy · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you. This leftist nonsense that everyone around the world is nice and nobody is a bad guy is far removed from the reality of the world.

    9. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your main battle tanks - are not meant to stand up to Russia or China's main battle tanks. In a war between anything approaching technological and economic peers, tanks are obsolete. After all, a single helicopter gunship can take out several whole squadrons of tanks and be home in time for tea.

      Tanks are good for one thing, and that's oppressing lightly-armed civilian populations. If you're going to be facing an actual army, do yourself a favor and leave the tanks at home.

    10. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      China could put up a stronger financial fight, but when US allies stop trading with them, they won't be doing so well.

      Last I knew, we didn't have much for allies...

      I figure after the whole nuclear treaty with Iran-thing, Iran will be more than willing to go back to selling oil for Euros. And I'm sure the EU will be fine with it. And they're just about as big a market as the US.

    11. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Not saying you're wrong on all points, but are tanks on a battlefield strategically important anymore? It seems like they are going more and more the way of the battleship - an expensive asset that is difficult to justify based on how war has evolved.

      Not as important as they once were. Which is why the US Army conceived the Future Combat Systems project. It was supposed to produce mini-tanks weighing less than 6 tons (the Abrams typically weighs 68 tons). It failed and was cancelled in 2009.

    12. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize you are talking about the military - someone addressed some of the issues with what you said. But what about all of the civilian government employees? The Clinton administration (so happy I don't have to specify which one) made a huge push to move as much of the technical smarts to the contracting side in order to cut costs. A government employee can end up being a lifetime commitment whereas a contractor can be turned off at a moment's notice (an in theory reactivated or replaced as needed). Some contractors are the developers and an entirely different set (in theory, an unbiased set) do analysis to help the government choose which contractors to use.

    13. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      After all, a single helicopter gunship can take out several whole squadrons of tanks and be home in time for tea.

      And that was before the age of drones. A Predator may cost as much as an Abrams tank, but it doesn't take four crew members to run it or put them at risk.

    14. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our main battle tanks are two generations behind Russia's.

      I don't view that as a big problem frankly. In my opinion the main battle tank as a concept has seen its day and is now well on the way to obsolescence. The ability to move a large gun around the battlefield for direct fire with relative immunity to small arms fire is slipping away now that increasing numbers of light infantry and light vehicles are armed with effective and highly portable anti-tank weapons. The US military is on the right path with investments in smaller, faster and more maneuverable vehicles armed with missiles and lighter rapid fire weapons in the 20 to 40 MM size range. In addition to increased ground threats, the vast array of smart weapons fired from the air has even further increased the vulnerability of tanks to destruction from above, which was classically a serious threat even going back to WWII and has only become more serious in the decades since. Finally, any tank large enough and well armored enough to push back against these threats rapidly becomes a logistical nightmare to deploy and maintain. At some point the tank becomes so large and heavy that it can only be transported by ship or rail, guzzles fuel by the tanker load and is unable to cross most bridges due to excessive weight. The Germans lost the heavy tank wager in WWII and the odds have not improved in favor of tanks since then. Finally, the US has lost many main battle tanks in recent wars to crude roadside bombs. No matter how heavy the armor, nobody in the vehicle is going to survive 5000 pounds of ANFO detonated beneath the hull. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan repeatedly demonstrated this weakness, particularly in the sorts of urban combats that are more and more a feature of 21st century wars.

    15. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neither Russian Oligarchs, the Chinese Communist Party, or Wall Street will accept a major conflict on superpower soil.

      Even if they did, the advantages of the main battle tank have faded on the modern battlefield which is now saturated with powerful man portable anti-tank weapons, both guided and unguided, as well as fast and maneuverable vehicles, also armed with anti-tank weapons, and finally skies filled with helicopters, aircraft and drones carrying smart bombs and a variety of other weapons that can easily hit the tank on the top rear deck armor which has historically been sacrificed in favor of thicker turret and lower hull armor to protect against more direct threats. The United States has already scrapped or sold a great many main battle tanks to allied militaries as surplus equipment. Why would they be doing that if the main battle tank was still the mainstay of land warfare?

    16. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about officers. Officers are managers and the churn is effective for that.

      Soldiers can stay at one location far longer and get promoted within the same unit.

      Civilians can and do also work for the military in non combat jobs like language translation and IT... And DARPA.

      So yes the military could get something done by itself if it decided to take the necessary steps.

    17. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there's nothing wrong with private industry. What we need is stop Congressmen from making decisions about the who, what, where about weapons systems. Congress shouldn't be telling the military how many tanks they need, what contractors should be used, or even if a project should be abandoned.

    18. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      How many enlisted have 'advanced degrees'?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to this is to de-privatize defense. It's obviously just a money sinkhole and spending more won't fix it. Our own military has enough people with advanced degrees that actual military members can create next-generation technology. The only contractors needed might be for construction labor - but those can be employees, not giant firms. That would also help avoid creating another huge bureaucracy.

      Do you really believe the best and brightest join the military? Far, FAR from it. While there are exceptions, the best and brightest go private where they don't risk going to war or have to go to boot camp or be stuck in some crap detail or deal with the all the other bullshit that comes with the military. Private sector is better in every way so unless you just like civil service no one who has other options is going to join the military.

    20. Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there are many classically liberal views I agree with, sometimes I think they just go too far. National defense is a critical industry for the survival of the country and, although the United States is not perfect and certain has its share of blame for tragedies in the world, global dominance by Russia or China would be far, far worse..

      In national defense, we've been falling backward (in relation to Russia and China) for the last few decades. Our main battle tanks are two generations behind Russia's and their air defense systems are also greatly enhanced. Iran successfully took over one of our most sophisticated drones and captured in, a couple years ago, using electronic warfare... Although we have the F-22 and the F-35 jets, we are falling in most other areas and are even behind in some.

      None of this matters in today's world. The threats today are very different.

      The USA could easily cut it's defence expenditures by 1/3 and still be ahead of China and Russia.

      Also, you are making the classic error of confusing advertised capabilities with real world performance. There's a huge difference. Corruption in the system, logistics problems, bad doctrine, and so forth can make seemingly advanced technology actually perform far worse than it's stats would cause you to predict.

      The French finished the battle of France in 1940 with MORE modern combat aircraft then they started with - because they failed to deploy them effectively. They also had tanks that could easily kill the German tanks - but which were resistant to German tank guns - and yet they lost the tank battles (the Germans ended up using high velocity anti-aircraft guns - not designed to fight tanks - to kill the French tanks).

      Conversely, the German destroyers in WW2 had far better stats on paper than their British equivalents - but when it mattered, the German ships didn't perform all that well, especially in bad weather, while the British ships were doing an excellent job of completing their missions.

      For another example, the German Panther tanks had far better stats on paper than the American-made Shermans - and yet at the battles of Arracout US and French tank crews slaughtered their German opponents in a very one-sided victory.

      There are numerous other examples of this principle in WW2 history and in the history of more recent conflicts.

  13. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go back to your containment board (https://boards.4chan.org/pol/) and STAY THERE, racist, neo-fascist, neo-nazi asshole. You're even more destructive than religion.

  14. Re:B-Bye, I wish you well.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt they'll be blacklisted, but if they are, nothing wrong with quitting the industry and working for an entity that actually has a conscience. Do education/development work in poorer parts of the US with an NGO. Go back to school, get an M.D. or nursing degree. Actually help fellow humans or do good research.

    Life's too short to work in the ad-tech or military murder industries for the rest of one's life.

  15. Yes, those resigners are so morally upright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while ignoring much of the rest of the shenanigans Google pulls. Cry me a river children.

    1. Re:Yes, those resigners are so morally upright by arbiter1 · · Score: 0

      Yea i would bet if H or Obum was in office their moral's wouldn't have any issues.

  16. "Maven" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0

    Maybe the developers were just told they would have to work with "Maven" and quit on the news (without knowing that it was also the name for some drone program). https://maven.apache.org/

  17. Well, bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will all be replaced very shortly by others that will happily do the job. Good luck on your future careers now, having this stigma associated with you.

    1. Re:Well, bye. by physburn · · Score: 1

      All the CV will say, is choose to leave google, so they have great employablity. Agree they'll be replaced easierly though. Being in IT you can replace your employee or employer easierly.

    2. Re:Well, bye. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      One man's stigma is another man's ideal qualification.

    3. Re:Well, bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be a real shame if they all got DOXXED though.. So people knew, to AC's point, about who left over it.

  18. Don't be evil by mi · · Score: 0, Troll

    how does this line up with "Do no harm?"

    It was never "Do no harm". It is "Don't be evil". Harming one's legitimate enemies is not only not evil, but perfectly just and, indeed, noble.

    Indeed, refusing to help America's military to do so would be evil — especially for an entity, which is itself enjoying the considerable freedoms and safety thanks to that same military.

    From TFA:

    nearly 4,000 Google employees have voiced their opposition to Project Maven in an internal petition that asks Google to immediately cancel the contract and institute a policy against taking on future military work.

    This is the continuation of sabotage which began in the 60ies. These "protesters" targeting the effort to make American weapons more effective, ought to be publicly named and shamed until they relent and apologize. And whoever hires them — boycotted.

    One of those resigning is quoted:

    “I realized if I can’t recommend people join here, then why am I still here?”

    Though by "here" he was referring to Google, the very same question ought to be asked of him about the US.

    Why are you still here, mister? Millions of people world-wide dream of becoming Americans. Go back to whence your ancestors came from and free up the room for people, who give this country its due appreciation.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  19. Employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Working for the company that happily allowed itself to be integrated into the fascist Chinese government now upset over perceived moral issues.

  20. Google's motto by Lucas123 · · Score: 2

    I remember when Google launched and the company touted its motto "Don't be evil". I guess the employees believe assisting the military in its drone program is a form of evil; And, while some may complain that a dozen people quitting doesn't amount to a hill of beans, I give those employees one heck of a lot of credit for standing up for what they believe in in a way most of us will never know.

  21. I don't blame them by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Allow me to explain this to those of you who don't get it: These people are 'quitting in protest' because they didn't sign up to work on weapons of war, and they have every right to quit over this because otherwise they're not living according to their own conscience. Having worked in the defense industry (by the way, what we worked on was training systems, not weapons systems; what we developed helped keep soldiers safe) it's far from the first time someone has made a decision like this, and in fact people who have objections to contributing to the development of deadly weapons of war very often make this clear when they're interviewing for a job. These people clearly did not forsee this and are now acting accordingly and do not deserve to be criticized for that.

    ..oh, and by the way: It's inevitable that the so-called 'AI' (inaptly named; is really not much more than 'pseudo-intelligence' at best) will make mistakes, and those mistakes will likely mean non-combatants becoming collateral damage. That's at the core of why they're quitting, and I for one don't blame them one bit.

    1. Re: I don't blame them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....and no opportunity to virtue signal shall be missed!

    2. Re: I don't blame them by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Well I guess if you have no principles or moral compass to begin with, then it's probably not possible for you to understand someone who does. Are you a sociopath?

    3. Re:I don't blame them by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      ..oh, and by the way: It's inevitable that the so-called 'AI' (inaptly named; is really not much more than 'pseudo-intelligence' at best) will make mistakes, and those mistakes will likely mean non-combatants becoming collateral damage

      And that never happens with humans looking at the videos because..........?

      And keep in mind, the humans are 18-25ish, have minimal training, and have to plow through many hours of recordings all day, every day. An "AI" reducing their workload by identifying what's "interesting" would probably reduce collateral damage.

    4. Re:I don't blame them by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Humans have to correct so-called 'AI' mistakes all the time. Remember that the so-called 'AI' we have now isn't much different from what we had in the late 90's.
      At least with a human making a mistake, there's someone to hold responsible, and someone to have a real conversation with. The real danger from the so-called 'AI' everyone is so hot about lately is that they'll be fooled into trusting it too much because 'it's a machine and machines don't make mistakes' -- until they make a big fat glaring mistake, which in this case means someone gets killed who doesn't deserve it.

    5. Re: I don't blame them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We must either make weapons or unilaterally disarm. Which choice does your moral compass point to?

    6. Re:I don't blame them by PPH · · Score: 1

      because they didn't sign up to work on weapons of war

      Were they working on the AI project that contracted to do Pentagon work? Or just some unrelated department at Google? If it's the former, most DoD contractors are more then happy to move you to some unrelated work. The last thing they want is a disgruntled employee that feels trapped (need the income, don't like the work) and might cause trouble. If it's just a protest over Google's involvement in general, there isn't much you can do in this country that isn't six degrees away from Kevin Bacon or the Pentagon.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:I don't blame them by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      This sounds entirely like someone working in the arms industry and attempting to justify it for himself.
      There is nothing benign about making weapons better, more precise, more powerful. It means they get used more, there is less reason for restraint. Why would you ever talk to the opposition anymore then.
      It's all about power and destroying all the opposition.

      And in this case it's power for Trump and psychos like Bolton who are just itching to use all that power. Next they'll be bombing Iran , Syria and North Korea with small nukes and you can claim they are so much more humane than large nukes.

    8. Re:I don't blame them by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      At least with a human making a mistake, there's someone to hold responsible

      Have you been paying attention to events during the last 3 decades?

      Also, you still are making the mistaken assumption that it's the AI deciding to target something. The AI here just filters the large volume of data so that the humans have less to look through, and thus can do better analysis. This mirrors what happens with current intelligence analysis, where the people who say "this guy is doing ___" are not the people who decide to do anything about it. There's zero reason to believe that structure will change for a long time because the military likes splitting this responsibility - J2 (intelligence) is not the same people as J3 (operations) and that split goes back quite a bit.

    9. Re:I don't blame them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..oh, and by the way: It's inevitable that the so-called 'AI' (inaptly named; is really not much more than 'pseudo-intelligence' at best) will make mistakes, and those mistakes will likely mean non-combatants becoming collateral damage. That's at the core of why they're quitting, and I for one don't blame them one bit.

      Because people in the military never make mistakes, only AI makes mistakes.

      Seem to recall the meat-based decision making group (which you seem to prefer) took out a lot of "non-combatants" in the previous administration.

      No one blames them for quitting - we don't care, we really don't, except for the fact that these frogs sat in the every increasingly hot water as their employer (Google) trashed the civil rights of billions of users to sell more ads which in-turn impacted elections and kept "her" (spelled "HRC") out of the white house, only now to jump out of the water when Google is trying to make target analysis more accurate/useful.

      They'll likely get in their Teslas and head down the street and put their energies to good use, developing a replacement web service to take the place of Backpage.

    10. Re:I don't blame them by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Oh fuck off already. This whole subject is about people working at Google who did not sign up to work on weapons systems for the military leaving their jobs on ethical and moral grounds. They have EVERY RIGHT to do so and so far as I'm concerned they made the RIGHT decision, especially considering that the fake-ass garbage they're calling 'AI' these days will just fuck it up anyway and get innocent people killed in a drone strike. IDGAF about any of the rest of it.

    11. Re:I don't blame them by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      This sounds entirely like someone working in the arms industry and attempting to justify it for himself.

      Please find someone else throwing around large piles of money for similar research so they can be evaluated as an alternative. If you don't want to waste your time, there isn't anyone. Even Google turned to DoD funding.

      The government is funding virtually all basic research in the United States now. And the DoD is one of the largest funding entities. If you don't like that reality, then you need to solve it economically and politically.

      Companies would have to go back to creating things like Xerox PARC and Bell Labs, and they aren't going to do that as long as we reward them more for being cheap. And DoD vs non-DoD spending is an entirely political issue that we absolutely have the power to fix....but you would have to do a lot more than attack someone on Slashdot to do so.

      Or we use DoD funding to advance various technologies. And then we get things like the Internet.

      There is nothing benign about making weapons better, more precise, more powerful.

      Compare what happened to Dresden in 1945 to Baghdad in 2002.

      It means they get used more, there is less reason for restraint

      Because we didn't go to war in Korea shortly after WWII....and then again in Vietnam....and then again in Reagan's various adventures....and then again in Iraq....and then again in Afghanistan....and then again in Iraq Mk 2....

      If greater precision made people use weapons more often, then that pace would have been accelerating instead of roughly one big war per 10-20 years.

      Why would you ever talk to the opposition anymore then. It's all about power and destroying all the opposition.

      Because you can't actually destroy them? See: North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the "war on terror" in general.

      And in this case it's power for Trump and psychos like Bolton who are just itching to use all that power.

      Because those same insane people using carpet bombing would be better, right? They have the political will to slaughter no matter what. Precision is not at all required.

      Finally, the technology being discussed is not at all about precision. It's about computers reducing human workload. It's not like we are not analyzing the video now. We're just having humans do it.

    12. Re:I don't blame them by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Oh fuck off already. This whole subject is about people working at Google who did not sign up to work on weapons systems for the military leaving their jobs on ethical and moral grounds

      Then why change the subject to how upstanding and moral your training systems are?

      Also, what do you think they do with that training? Even if you're talking about something as noble as firefighting or medivac rescues, that training is in service of the war machine.

      especially considering that the fake-ass garbage they're calling 'AI' these days will just fuck it up anyway and get innocent people killed in a drone strike

      Hey look! You jumped again to AI targeting. Not gonna happen. O3 isn't going to hand over it's work to O2.

    13. Re: I don't blame them by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Virtue signalling does not involve accepting any real significant personal loss as part of the process. That one is called "personal integrity". But I guess you have no experience with that and hence cannot understand it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:I don't blame them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The arrogance of the left to cherry-pick what is and is not an appropriate target for criticism. If the roles were reversed, you'd be arguing that they made a choice, and that choices can have consequences.

    15. Re:I don't blame them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize you're a standard Anti-America hyperbolic fag, but even you can understand Google has no problem helping the Chinese government round up dissidents to be tortured and executed. It's only when politicians they don't like want something that they magically develop a conscience.

    16. Re:I don't blame them by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Fuck off.

    17. Re:I don't blame them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you've just failed to parse the issue or if you're being deliberately misleading. You were corrected above in your earlier comment posted 6 mins before this one (readers: look for the comment further up the page with random words in bold) but it seems you were too keen to get your points out there.

      The AI is not being used for the development of deadly weapons. It is being used to identify objects in drone footage in order to REDUCE the number of civilian casualties. Apparently you think humans could somehow sift through the enormous amount of data more effectively, and result in fewer deaths than if AI performs the image matching it is known and proven to excel at.

      No one is blindly trusting the AI to get it right. Humans will check the results and from what I can tell only humans will actually be in charge of any actual weapons.

      This is not a weapons system. It's merely doing object detection on images / footage from drones. That detection will then be used by HUMANS to carry out further missions, presumably.

      People are free to quit their jobs over it however - even if some of us think it's probably misguided. It seems nonsensical to me because others will fill those roles and the project will still go ahead without them. But they got attention I guess.

    18. Re:I don't blame them by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Please find someone else throwing around large piles of money for similar research so they can be evaluated as an alternative. If you don't want to waste your time, there isn't anyone. Even Google turned to DoD funding.

      You were supposed to say "Nice try but no."
      It's one thing to say the system is fucked up and I'm just adapting to it', and another to start rationalizing that it's actually a good thing.

      I know that the DoD has replaced the government in many respects. It gets all the government's money and everyone pragmatically goes to the DoD instead of the government for assistance.

      Concerning the damage of modern weapons, at the time of North Korea they flattened the whole country and nobody bothered. Vietnam changed a lot because of television. They could still quietly flatten Cambodia but massacres became more visible and there were quite some american deaths. The place was also fairly democratic at the time, and for a while the US had no major direct wars. Carpet bombing was out. The Iraq war of 1990 was 'liberating'. There was a renewed sense of freedom to go to war: a lot of expensive air power, few American casualties, and very prominent precision bombardment movies, and tight media control. So yes, improvements in weapons did mean less restraint. It made wars easier to sell. Obama could easily sell undeclared drone wars in many countries, which is actually extraordinary.

      The point is to reduce the role of the public to extracting their money. Automation is part of this process of insulation. The Afghanistan war has been going on for 17 years, it has cost many times the GNP of Afghanistan and it's not an issue. Still too many soldiers being hurt though, and paradoxically their families voted for Trump. But together with generally reduced level of democracy, more media control, the attraction of automation is to insulate the public completely from the wars. All they feel is 'something odd about the money'. So yes this is on topic.

  22. Re:Awww, those poor widdle snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Da, Comrade!

    We loyal American patriot know always right thinking!

    Crooked Hitlery want LGBT babby from black man, #MAGA!

  23. Re:frist by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 0

    you spelled "psot" wrong.

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  24. Can I be hired instead ? by nomad63 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, can I be hired in place of one of those who left, probably the best job of their lives ? Over what ? A moronic principle. There is no company who can say they will not work with/for the government and/or military. Otherwise how will the government will spend the money, supposedly paid to $725 for single hammer or $2200 worth of toilet seats ? C'mon people. Be reasonable. Really,. if someone from google is looking for a replacement for one of their childish employees who left, I am here to replace. Just drop a response.

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
    1. Re:Can I be hired instead ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faith in humanity restored! /s

    2. Re:Can I be hired instead ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, HR said you have no morals and will screw the company over in the end.

    3. Re:Can I be hired instead ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those numbers where from bullshit accounting methods to make them as large as possible, not from actual invoices. Lets say you were hit by a car and needed a month in the hospital. Now take all your medical costs over your entire life. All hospital bills, doctor visits, dentist visits, how much your birth cost, floss, soap, every band aid you've used, sun tan lotion, etc... Add it all up and divide by the number of items. Now lets all make fun of you for spending $100 on a tooth brush. Do the same for all the fabric things (clothing, blankets, rugs, etc...) you've used and you'll find each sock suddenly 'costs' a lot more. Why are you such an idiot for spending $25 for each basic sock you own?

      You spend $100 on a tooth brush and $25 on a sock. I wouldn't hire a person like you. In fact, I'm going to charge you double for using any of my services since you like to waste money else where.

      Please stop repeating the bullshit stories you hear. If you haven't researched them, chances are all you heard about is the clickbait which tends to be the furthest from the truth you can get without outright lying.

    4. Re:Can I be hired instead ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, can I be hired in place of one of those who left, probably the best job of their lives ? Over what ? A moronic principle.

      Sorry, that sounds more like an application for management than engineering. Engineering jobs are for socially inept people, not sociopaths.

  25. Re: Awww, those poor widdle snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and Iâ(TM)ll be glad to mail you a hanky. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

  26. It is only fitting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that Google will one day build Skynet.

  27. In other news by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    Thousands of employees resigned from their employer because of policies they don't agree with.

    No news at 11 because this is just another day.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  28. What a bunch of idiots... by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. AI and expert systems are going to be a standard in war regardless of what google does or doesn't do.

    2. The US government is hardly the only power trying to integrate this tech into its military.

    3. For all the largely LARPy ire at US foreign policy, what is the alternative hegemonic power you would prefer from the available contenders? Currently - Russia, China, maybe one of the Islamic countries or a coalition there of Pakistan/Turkey/Iran/etc. Of those which would you prefer to be the hegemonic power? Because Switzerland isn't a contender, sweethearts.

    Given the above reality... What does protest quitting Google do?

    Its meaningless virtue signaling. It accomplishes nothing productive. And even if it did slow or shut down the US development of AI enhanced weapons, that would only give one of the other major powers an advantage. And since literally every single one of those powers is if anything more questionable in its ethics regarding war... What are you really doing here?

    I get it. We don't live in an ideal world. This world has war. We kill each other on occasion. But that isn't going to stop. Idealism is a sad substitute for sound foreign policy.

    As the line goes "if you desire peace, prepare for war."

    I desire peace. And I know that if I were sent into the fires of a war, I would want the best weapons my country could supply for me. I cannot therefore in good conscience frustrate the development or deployment of any equipment or programs for our people that I would want for myself in the same situation. I want to live. I want to live in peace and security. And the only way that is going to happen on this planet short of submitting to enslavement... is to be formidable.

    By all means, refuse to work on Google's AI project. It is a free country. No one will force you to work where you do not wish to work. But it is meaningless.

    The tech will get developed and become standard. Everyone knows this. Opposing it is futile.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by GeekBoy · · Score: 1

      Well said

    2. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by tomthepom · · Score: 1

      Given the above reality... What does protest quitting Google do?

      Stop Sarah Connor killing you?

    3. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the above reality... What does protest quitting Google do?

      Stop Sarah Connor killing you?

      It probably won't have any effect on Google. But it will have an effect on the people themselves who presumably would feel happier not having this work on their conscience.

    4. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry about the fucked up quoting and replying there. I'm guessing it's obvious what I wanted to do.

    5. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Given the above reality... What does protest quitting Google do?"

      They get to (a) feel good (b) be hero's to their lefty friends (c) stay up late at night wiping their eyes with $100 bills thinking about what big hero's they are and what a big bold move it was (d) get to say things like "I only wish I could do more" while at the same time, in fact, not doing more.

    6. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of claps and agreement from here.

    7. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Given the above reality... What does protest quitting Google do?

      It shows management that if they want to keep their employees happy (regardless of US foreign policy realities), they might want to avoid military contracts.

      And even if it did slow or shut down the US development of AI enhanced weapons, that would only give one of the other major powers an advantage. And since literally every single one of those powers is if anything more questionable in its ethics regarding war... What are you really doing here?

      So they get an advantage when it comes to selecting targets in the middle of a desert to drone strike. Let them have it.

      I get it. We don't live in an ideal world. This world has war. We kill each other on occasion. But that isn't going to stop. Idealism is a sad substitute for sound foreign policy.

      Well then as long as there's war somewhere on earth we might as well blow up some Syrians.

      I know that if I were sent into the fires of a war, I would want the best weapons my country could supply for me.

      Good thing it's UAV operations we're talking about and not real pilots then.

      I want to live in peace and security. And the only way that is going to happen on this planet short of submitting to enslavement... is to be formidable.

      We're already extremely formidable when it comes to actual national defense. I think you're confusing that with foreign intervention. Are you really afraid the Ruskies are going to fly their drones to the US and take over due to their incredible AI that we didn't develop first? You sound like one of those people who keep like 8 assault rifles at home for "self defense, just in case". Living your life in fear can be more mentally damaging (and expensive) than taking a risk on someone robbing you (or invading your country).

    8. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the line goes "if you desire peace, prepare for war."

      This may have been true at an earlier point in history. The lesson of the twentieth century was that advanced weaponry has now made war far too costly in life and property. This was the impetus for the formation of the UN, that we should never again need to sacrifice millions of lives to the ambitions of would-be emperors. Sadly, the UN was but the refrigerator drawing of a toddling humanity, and it shows only the promise of the future cooperation of nations.

      Fortunately, we still have despots that dream big and don't mind slaughter, so it is likely we will get another chance to fashion a world commonwealth. In the meantime, I'd rather be killed standing by than participate in such lunacy. When enough of us refuse to participate in global war and instead choose to do everything we can to improve the condition of all humanity, then peace will be born out of a general consensus, ...or more particularly the people will demand it of their leaders, and the nations will cooperate to bring it about. These days the shunning of nations via economic sanction seems to be much more effective than military intervention of any kind. I suspect that this will be more true as time goes by.

      Aside from enriching arms manufacturers, military conflict between nations has no upside any more. Ask anyone who has been through one lately.

    9. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to management, the wages they pay are enough to attract the best talent as is... so I doubt it matters.

      Go through the argument... what happens if management doesn't blink? Most of the people that go to work at google weren't born in northern California. They're attracting labor from all over the world. Whilst some people in some places might take this stuff seriously, over the span of the planet... money talks.

      As to you being happy to cede military advantages to contesting powers, spoken like someone that cares nothing for the men sent into war. If YOU went to war would you not want the very best your civilization could provide for you? You would. You don't want to die. I don't want to die. But if I am going to war or if I am sending someone to war then I want the very best equipment that we can afford and produce. It is the least we can do for people risking their lives in our names.

      As to Syrians, you do know that most of the people opposed to the US involvement in Syria have flip flopped on that one pathetically, right? The Europeans have begged the US to go to syria when we don't go... and then when we do go... they say we shouldn't be there.

      It is this annoying and idiotic hypocrisy of certain people. The US is damned no matter what it does. If the US doesn't go, then we're ignoring genocide. If we do go then we're bombing another country which is apparently bad even if the guy we're bombing keeps poison gas attacking civilians.

      Which would you prefer? Would you prefer we ignored genocides... and that includes ignoring the stupid politicians and diplomats from allied countries that beg us to go to war to stop genocides? Or would you prefer us to go into those situations and bomb the people doing the thing?

      Because you can't have it both ways without sounding deceitful or confused no matter how smug and self righteous you feel when you do that.

      As to UAV, that clearly augments manned operations and is an aspect of support provided to those forces thus rendering your observation naive.

      As to our formidability, this is not a fixed constant of the universe. It is a constant struggle which requires constant investment, innovation, and adaptation SIMPLY to MAINTAIN the status quo.

      If you presume your formidability absent investment, innovation, and adaptation then you're going to suffer the same fate that every power faces when it has become senial. I don't want my country to become some confused dottering old man that confuses his glorious youth with his saggy retrograde present.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      False. The UN is run by the Security Council...

      What is litmus test for entry into the Security Council?

      Military prowess is the key feature though there are some countries on it that got token seats.

      Why is China on it and Mexico isn't? Why is Russia on it and Saudi Arabia isn't?

      Think.

      So no. The old lesson remains valid.

      What is more, the UN doesn't decide wars. The UN is only relevant because the existing powers invest in it. And of those powers, which of them would maintain the UN absent the US? The concept and idealism of the UN itself is a product of Western liberal ideals. Is Russia a subscriber to that? Is China?

      Absent the US or some other power that bought into Western liberal ideals... the UN itself would go into decay.

      People keep thinking humanity is done with war after every big war. Learn. The war will never end. It is a feature of the species. And disarming yourself is the best way to fall prey to the hostility of other humans.

      You say that is all in the past? Very well. We'll just disarm all the nuclear weapons. Sink all the war ships. Beat all the guns into scrap. Feel safer now? Because you're the only one that did it... your neighbors that you're so convinced are peaceful... retain their weapons. Which means your freedom and life continue only so long as they wish to permit you to have it.

      People with your ideals should live near hostile countries... bare your throats... and suffer the consequences. I love my civilization too much to allow people like you to destroy it with ignorance and childish idealism.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you missed the part where I explained that the UN was a defective and insufficient institution (refrigerator drawing). That is why you can point to it and use it to glorify your militarism.

      Nor did I suggest that total disarmament was desireable or feasable. Governments, by definition, must possess the means to defend and to coerce.

      What I assert is that war between nations, and the arms race it spawns, can no longer be tolerated nor condoned. To avoid war, it will be necessary for nations to cooperate and effect means of resolving disputes that do not involve wanton slaughter, and the UN is a sign that such a system might one day be designed.

      If I have a beef with my neighbor, I don't start shooting his kids; I take hime to court. Maybe I win. Maybe I lose. But nobody has to die.

      Nations should, likewise, be able to coexist under a rule of law, enforced by a consensus of all nations.

      If your civilization cannot survive without destroying another and shedding the blood of millions and reducing its cities to rubble, then perhaps the world would be better off without it. Again, I challenge you to give an example of a military conflict between nations that has had any upside in the past fifty years.

    12. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For all the largely LARPy ire at US foreign policy, what is the alternative hegemonic power you would prefer from the available contenders? Currently - Russia, China, maybe one of the Islamic countries or a coalition there of Pakistan/Turkey/Iran/etc. Of those which would you prefer to be the hegemonic power? Because Switzerland isn't a contender, sweethearts."

      None of the above. How about non-hegemonic diplomacy?

    13. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      Not an option.

      You just answered "banana" on a math test.

      You get a grade of zero. Come see me after class.

      And before you try to defend your answer of "banana", I don't think you appreciate what a hegemonic power is and why having one is inevitable. There is always one within the scope of the range of effective military power.

      In the 21st century that is global... which means you're going to get a global hegemony.

      Who do you want to play that role? Keep in mind, whomever you choose will have to have the power and will to back it up.

      I get your idealism... but its impractical, unrealistic, and if bought into indifferent to its impracticality will result in a lot of people dying for nothing.

      You take the peace we have in the world for granted. You take the international order we have for granted. The order we have is a product of US hegemony. The UN has never known a day where the US wasn't in supremacy. The entire international "order" is a product of US power.

      Absent the US, the entire system unravels. Nations that don't have to defend themselves would suddenly have to expand their military spending by a factor of 4. Regional tensions which are suppressed by US power would suddenly flair up and escalate into regional wars. Various powers in those regions would win or lose creating dominance hierarchies. Dominate powers in given regions would challenge neighboring dominate powers for supremacy... on and on until you had a global order again.

      And who or what is going to win that kind of struggle?

      Here you might say "but nuclear weapons"... Nukes only prevent direct invasion of your nation. They don't stop anything else. I can blockade your country or interdict your trade without invading. You're not going to nuke me for interdicting your trade if the consequence of nuking me is that I nuke you.

      You need both a powerful conventional force and a nuclear deterrent.

      Thus to replace the US, you'd need a power that was credible at replacing the US. Russia, China, or possibly some Islamic alliance is all you have unless Europe creates reboots.

      You have no ideal option. Thus the ideal is a nonsense. Suggest another idea that is possible.

      If you say banana again... I'm calling your father and we're going to have a talk about how seriously you're taking your studies.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to tolerating arms races, you can't stop them. And your condoning of anything is really not relevant. Its not like the nations of the world wait in baited breath for your approval. The underlying interests force this context. Your moral outrage at that doesn't alter those forces. So your moral outrage as much as it might matter to you doesn't change the system.

      Your outrage... no offense... is irrelevant.

      As to the UN being a sign that such a system could be built, no... you missed my point that the UN is ultimately a projection of US and Western liberal ideals. Absent Western hegemony those ideals won't be a controlling factor on international relations.

      Obviously. See the obvious. It is obvious.

      As to court, courts are ultimately backed up by the police. If I ignore a court, the cops come for me. For your international court to have meaning it would need a "cop" powerful enough to take any nation in the world to court by force. In other words... a hegemon. Currently the US has hegemony. What would you propose that would be MORE powerful than the US thus making it capable of taking hegemony from the US?

      Even if the US completely vanished thus making it not something you have to surpass... you still have to have enough power to take the Russian Federation and the Chinese etc to court... BY FORCE. Because that's how courts work.

      If anyone could just ignore a court, then the party that believed he would lose a court case would just ignore the summons.

      This is really pretty fundamental.

      What do you think brought the Germans to war crimes trials at the end of WW2? A letter? Do you think it was a court summons that brought Nazi war criminals to trial?

      Obviously not. How can you not see how obvious this is? This is amazing.

      What brought Nazi war criminals to trial was the combined military power of the allied military machine. Which as everyone knows was also the foundation of the UN itself.

      How do you not know this? This is basic history. You're killing me here.

      As to military upsides over the last 50 years...

      Well, the US was asked by the Europeans and the UN to intervene in Kosovo, Iraq the first time, Libya, and I think they were asking as well in Syria. Just off the top of my head.

      Do you want links on this? Lets do it.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://www.icc-cpi.int/libya/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Whether you like or dislike war... most of these conflicts you're pissed at by the US go through a process of international law as signed by all member nations.

      What is more, you limitation of the time of your argument to the last 50 years is also a concession that there are wars you clearly agree with.

      What you probably don't grasp with that, is that the 50 year span you're talking about is largely the period of US hegemony. Prior to US hegemony... well, germany or imperial japan could contest for power. After US hegemony we have peace by and large in the world. With the only conflicts being limited regional conflicts that do not disrupt international trade or or pose a threat outside of the limited war zones.

      if you removed US hegemony then that would change... you take the international order for granted. Everything you think people just "do now because its 2018"... they do it because of the system we have built. Take the system down and everything will change.

      You give the US no credit for the international order. That is unsupportable given the US's overwhelming influence on everything. Give the US its due and then recalculate your position. Also keep in mind that most of the things the US does come with the backing

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colonel Jessup, is that you?

      As to tolerating arms races, you can't stop them. And your condoning of anything is really not relevant. Its not like the nations of the world wait in baited breath for your approval. The underlying interests force this context. Your moral outrage at that doesn't alter those forces. So your moral outrage as much as it might matter to you doesn't change the system.

      That's right. GP can't handle the truth! We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? The GP? No, it's up to men like Colonel Jessup here to take on responsibility little anonymous cowards like GP can't possibly fathom.

      You give the US no credit for the international order. That is unsupportable given the US's overwhelming influence on everything. Give the US its due

      Yeah! Colonel Jessup has neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that he provides, and then questions the manner in which he provide it! Would much rather he just said "thank you", and went on their way.

    16. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      whilst I appreciate your humor... and I do... I laughed... the underlying point remains and is valid.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed comrade! A world ruled by globalists (what you call hegemony) is inevitable. The power vacuum must be filled. Better our guy fill it than somebody else.

      And to ensure that our guy is the king, we're not gonna do whatever it takes. Nothing's gonna stop us. Not Willie Santiago, not Dawson and Downey, not Markinson, not 1,000 armies, not the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and not the Constitution of the United States! Thatâ(TM)s the truth isn't it Colonel? I can handle it.

    18. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      Your sarcasm simply means you want to see what the world would look like without that security network in place.

      Well, whilst I understand why we put it in place and believe it to be in the interest of the world that it remain... I actually agree that it should be removed.

      Not because it is in the world's interest but because it is in my own nation's interest. The security network is expensive and exposes the US to risks and entanglements with foreign conflicts that I'd just assume not engage my nation in at all.

      This means I am accepting your proposal whilst still seeing things accurately. I am accepting the genocides and the horrible wars that will sweep over the world burning nations to ash as they challenge each other for power.

      It isn't my nation's fight. And beyond that, in the shadow of American security we have millions of naive ingrates like "you" that don't respect the value of that blood and the peace it has brought to uncounted millions. You don't deserve it.

      I want my people to go home, shut down all the foreign military bases, and let the world go back to "nature". If you want to trade or travel to the US there after, you'll find me very friendly and reasonable. But if you scream for the US to come save you... I'll say "no".

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    19. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sarcasm simply means you want to see what the world would look like without that security network in place.

      No it doesn't. Nice false dichotomy there. I was just pointing out the contradiction: the thing that protects "Western liberal values" is an illberal hegemony, with plenty of positions of power for the Colonel Jessups of the world.

      This means I am accepting your proposal whilst still seeing things accurately.

      I would say you're seeing things as Hobbes would (as opposed to Rosseau or Locke). I think this debate is not so much about accuracy as it is philosophy.

      in the shadow of American security we have millions of naive ingrates like "you" that don't respect the value of that blood and the peace it has brought to uncounted millions. You don't deserve it.

      First... millions? That's it? The US has like 300 million people. A few million is single digit %. You can probably find as many Scientology believers (*checks wiki* in 2004 they claim 4 million in the US, 8 million worldwide... numbers are likely exaggerated but still, "millions" of people)

      Second, I'm pretty sure the other AC mentioned that he understands nations still need to protect themselves, so I don't think he's one of those "ingrates".

      Third, as above, this debate depends heavily on the philosophical Hobbes vs Rosseau (vs Locke) debate. That others don't share your Hobbesian view doesn't make them ingrates (or ignorant of history, or any other slurs you like to apply)

    20. Re:What a bunch of idiots... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      As to western values being "illiberal"... compared to what actually manefest power in the world?

      Its very easy to judge people when you compare them against things that don't exist. Very easy to judge anything... your car isn't as good as this make believe space ship... feel that is fair or reasonable?

      Of course not.

      We've shown more restraint, built more mutually beneficial systems... I mean, who do we have to prove our selves to here here? Which power would you have instead?

      As to you not wanting the security grid to drop... well, here we have you wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

      Which is it? Cake in your hand or cake in your belly? Can't have both. Do you want the a beneign hegemony that has created the existing order or would you like the power that built it to just... walk away?

      I really want the various detractors to experience what the world would be like without the US. The status quo of peace you presume is not natural. It was created by the British empire and then sustained and strengthened by the American republic.

      Don't like it? Again, my vote is that my people walk.

      As to philosophy, you can argue the whichness of the why all you like whilst your nation burns. I don't really care. We have overwhelming empirical evidence of what would happen. You can quibble about that all you like as your peaceful neighbors suddenly go hostile and invade. I would do nothing to encourage it beyond simply not being there to stop it. That it would happen is certain. You disagree? Fine. Then the security grid dropping won't bother you. Another vote for the Americans leaving. :-)

      As to "millions" you apparently have reading comprehension issues. I said in the quote you quoted me in "uncounted millions". I didn't say a few million or a million. Uncounted millions can be any number of millions... from here to infinity.

      And really, that you chose THAT to respond to and you demonstrated a truly pathetic grasp of the english language... We're done. You're an idiot.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  29. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well that sounds like a problem requiring a health oriented solution rather than employing a primitive solution such as wrapping your wife's face in a tarp.

  30. Millennial "hate". Defense contracting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The GP's post is just poorly disguised Millennial hate. You know, this young generation has all their values bass-ackwards, yadda yadda yadda ....

    Anyway, now that we are in a state of perpetual war, we're going to need to find cheap effective ways to fight these wars. As we spiral down the path to our eventual irrelevancy on the World stage (Thanks Trump!), we are going to have to flatten the curve so that we can at least pay the Social Security and Medicare of the next couple of generations.

    See, we have just passed the tipping point of a forever war and it will continue until we just can't afford it anymore. (Thanks again Trump! ) I'm just waiting for the Mullahs to declare some sort of Jihad against Trump - like blowing up Trump properties around the World all because of the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem.

    In the meantime, we can be part of the Military Industrial Complex but putting any savings we have into defense contractors - that's where the money is going to be.

    And Google sees that.

  31. You can only do what you control by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Why did they quit?

    Presumably because Google crossed a line for them on their personal moral compass. Might or might not be something you care about.

    Did they think noone would step up and do it instead of them?

    Why would that be a relevant consideration for them? The point is that THEY did not want to be a part of doing that job. They cannot control what others do. Other people do lots of jobs I don't want to do. When I've quit jobs the last thing I give a shit about is whether someone will take my place and do it for me since I don't control that. Furthermore if they work at Google they're probably pretty talented and well paid so it's not like they are stuck there if they don't want to be.

    All top brass sees is maybe a 6 month setback hiring and training, and yeah that sucks, but that's not going to institute change.

    No but quitting loudly and publicly sometimes has the effect of shaming the top brass into changing their behavior. No guarantee of course but doing nothing will definitely not change anything.

  32. Re: B-Bye, I wish you well.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    "Outback" hick. Wow! I've always wanted to visit Australia. But would I be a hick, or a bogan?

  33. Re:B-Bye, I wish you well.... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Do education/development work in poorer parts of the US with an NGO.

    Any evidence they are doing anything like that?

    Go back to school, get an M.D. or nursing degree.

    They might do that, since it pays well. Maybe.

    Life's too short to work in the ad-tech or military murder industries for the rest of one's life.

    Except they were working happily in the ad-tech data abuse business. That didn't bother them at all.

  34. Re:B-Bye, I wish you well.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    My point is that you have employment choices in the US (or even abroad) if you're a human with a conscience.

  35. Re: Awww, those poor widdle snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes because every TRUE american knows that REAL men (i.e. english-speaking white christian conservative) would NEVER wear pink.

  36. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    "You're even more destructive than religion."

    Citation needed.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  37. I have none by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erosion of user trust? What trust is there to erode?

  38. Don't worry, folks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Google Asshole Shawn Willden will still be on the job; no ethical delicacies for him. Shills gotta keep shillin'!!

  39. Not surprising . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    . . . since Google itself has actually acted in a moral fashion as regards refusing to give up the store to China, which Narus, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Apple have soooo willingly done so, ensuring the deaths and forced organ harvesting of too many Chinese individuals deemed to be enemies of the state due to their not following the CCP doctrine.

  40. Standard intelligence policy actually by foxalopex · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's interesting that this is actually standard practice when it comes to intelligence or military applications. You're told when you sign up for any intelligence position is that if you have a moral issue, you first take it up with your superior, if that isn't satisfactory then you resign. It's also a difficult call too, imagine how many scientists felt during the development of the nuclear bomb.

  41. Re: Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just got reassigned from YouTube, huh, Comrade? Try remembering that you're on a tech board now and behave accordingly.

  42. It begs the question .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (fuck you all, that's the correct use of it)

    What the fuck are we even in every war we are currently in?!

    Hitting Civilians wouldn't be a problem if we weren't involved in - god, how many now? Five?!

  43. Snowflakes by barakn · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'm developing an algorithm to estimate the I.Q. of posters based on a single post. You start at 100 and lose 10 points for use of the word "snowflake" when referring to a person. You lose 5 more points for not being able to type an apostrophe.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    1. Re: Snowflakes by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a very useful algorithm. I'm sure some snowflake will pay you good money for that.

    2. Re: Snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lose 20 points. :-)

    3. Re: Snowflakes by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      " Im sure some snowflake will pay you good money for that"

      TFTFY

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    4. Re:Snowflakes by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      What about one space after a period?

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    5. Re:Snowflakes by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I thought you were kidding, but I think, no, I think you are correct. The word "snowflake" seems like the popular insult to drop into every even slightly right-of-center post, so they can whine about how they get modded down.

    6. Re: Snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard two is more readable..

  44. Nothing noble about harming others by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Harming one's legitimate enemies is not only not evil, but perfectly just and, indeed, noble.

    People declare others to be their "enemies" for all sorts of idiotic and irrational reasons. Tribalism not the least among them. Just because you don't like someone doesn't make harming them a justifiable activity. I could not disagree more with your statement as it stands. There is nothing "noble" about harming anyone. Sometimes it is necessary and occasionally it is just. But noble? No.

    1. Re:Nothing noble about harming others by mi · · Score: 2

      People declare others to be their "enemies" for all sorts of idiotic and irrational reasons

      I said "legitimate enemies". Are you disputing the legitimacy? Moreover, who — in a 300+ mln country — is to decide the legitimacy? The answer is right there in the Constitution...

      There is nothing "noble" about harming anyone. [...] Sometimes it is necessary and occasionally it is just. But noble? No.

      I would think, harming a criminal in defense of the weak — when there is no threat to yourself — is noble... But, maybe, we grew up on different books.

      For the sake of argument, let's stick to the "just". If harming legitimate enemies is just, then so is the work of making such harming more effective — and, incidentally, less dangerous to the innocent.

      The validity of the rest of my argument immediately follows.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Nothing noble about harming others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said "legitimate enemies". Are you disputing the legitimacy? Moreover, who — in a 300+ mln country — is to decide the legitimacy? The answer is right there in the Constitution...

      No, the answer is... me. I decide. I can think of almost no greater violation of a person's individual human rights than to compel him, against his will, to do violence to others. I might freely enlist to defend my country should it be attacked, but it is, and always will be, my choice. To do otherwise would be to deny my rights as a moral man, and to elevate some top-down collective over my right to make a moral choice.

  45. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China/Iran/Russia are already doing this. I say we ship these idiots to one of those countries.

  46. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tarp wraps are the newest hotness!

  47. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ability to accept opinions needed.

  48. Problem or solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google feels they are a good influence, be a part of the solution at the Pentagon. Do you want to run away, don't complain if someone else steps in and does the job for the Pentagon. Be a part of the problem or be a part of the solution. Simple as that.

  49. oh bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese are very open about developing AI driven weapons. These cowardly asshats have vote to allow an oppressive dictatorrship to have this capability, but not the western democracies.

    1. Re: oh bullshit by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That is a recycling of the cold war 'missle gap' arguement.

  50. Re:Better just to... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Iranians don't care much about the US (despite their bluster). They may be a threat to oil shipments (Strait of Hormuz) and to Israel. Israel is capable of defending itself. The solution to the oil shipment problem is energy independence, ideally through a large proportion of nuclear or renewables.

    Afghanistan was made the way it was through US meddling in the 80s and Saudi funding. Cut the funding (see also: Saudi embargo) and the problem would be reduced without a land war in Asia... But frankly, we should have let Afghanistan alone in the 80s and let the Soviets do what they wanted. Afghanistan would likely have been better off under Communist rule than under the Taliban.

  51. Re: publish the typical demographic of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oy vey, goy! What are ya, some kind of Nazi, or what?

  52. Autonomous killbots by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    is where I see this going. If you can Id good targets from pictures offline then it won't be long until you can do it in realtime. There's a world of difference between using AI to sell me McDonald's Cheeseburgers & BMWs and using it to kill people.

    What's scary is you're having trouble with the difference (and if you are, so are other people). Even ignoring the fact that our drone program is anything but legitimate it ought to be obvious why someone who makes advertisements for a living wouldn't want to switch over to weapon's manufacture.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  53. Dozen Out of 75,000+ Employees by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    According to the article, only a dozen or so employees have resigned out a workforce of around 75,000+ employees. It's not that the employees' action isn't significant, but it's such a small number in the grand scheme of things, unless they are key managers or technical leads, it's hard to really say it will have much, if any, impact in the long run.

  54. That's only because it can't be done in real time by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    yet. Give it another 10, 20 years and we'll have fully automated kill bots. As long as civilian casualties aren't a concern then it'll work great.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  55. It wasn't a few Trillion by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's around $9 ($7 trillion in Iraq and $2 in Afghanistan). Of course, I'm not counting what we spend in the rest of the region.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It wasn't a few Trillion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally wrong - In fact, complete bullshit.

      Since 2001, the combined expenditures in both countries is somewhere around $2 trillion, total.
      If you add in cost of money, veteran's care, etc, it still comes out to less than $2.5 trillion.

      $7 trillion in Iraq works out to something like 100 years worth of that Iraq's GDP was BEFORE the First Gulf War (which was much higher, about twice, what it was in 2003). If we'd spent that much in just 17 years, the country would be overflowing with money. It'd be the richest state in the region several times over.

      The fact that you can believe what you wrote just goes to show how poor people are at understanding large numbers.

  56. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know your a troll but I feel the need to educate you. The real problem with Muslims is their polygamous society. The reason that women are forced to cover their faces is an attempt to reduce envy. When a population is 50/50 male female and a man can have more than one wife (four is a respectable number?) that means that their will be men who will not have a wife at all. Polygamy causes men to be very reactive to the slightest bit of humiliation as it suggests that they are not a superior man and decreases the chance of being considered a suitable partner.

  57. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, obviously the problem is polygamy. not the complete inability to act like a civil social human being.

    clearly.

  58. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many degrees, my friend. Man likes to think on his feet, why do you think this should be somebody else's (published) opinion?

  59. Curious ethical foibles by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    It is possible the the same Google employees resigning now sat tight as Google continues to read users email to build out their profiles and when it was shown by CitizenFour that Google was selling back door access to various agencies.

  60. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, at least that one judge bought that a 'sexual emergency' was valid reason to rape a boy at a pool.

  61. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  62. Re: Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we know you're trolling. This board hasn't been 'tech' in forever, just people bemoaning the lack of tech stories.

  63. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The country of the native americans?

  64. Clickbait. Does not affect sane mailers... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And really has not much to do with PGP either, it is about insane HTML integration in email software that can leak data if external resources are loaded automatically and your email is decrypted automatically. If you have either of these, your security has gone out of the window long before the present issue was discovered. Security is not free, it takes effort. Also apparently some mailers tell PGP to use insecure encryption.

    Bottom line, a sane set-up that only renders HTML, but does not fetch/execute anything and uses the PGP/GnuPG is safe from this. And yes, you should definitely use PGP/GnuPG, despite what some people say.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Clickbait. Does not affect sane mailers... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry, posted in the wrong thread. Please ignore.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  65. Where is the harm? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

    Ai is not being used to make life or death decisions, man in the loop has long been a requirement for use of force. Google's Ai is intelligently sorting millions of images from drones presenting that data, and choosing which areas to focus surveillance on.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  66. What a bunch of projection by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

    No one does what the U.S. does. Russia, China, bumbfuckistan don't have a drone murder program blowing up innocent people for completely bullshit reasons. And the terrorist countries that come the closest to doing so, Saudi Arabia and Israel, are your buddies using your weapons.

    You even know that the entire defense budget of Russia is half the size of the last increase to the American Imperial budget? We're talking 45 billion dollars a year next to over a trillion.

    1. Re:What a bunch of projection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this to 10.

    2. Re:What a bunch of projection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia, China, bumbfuckistan don't have a drone murder program blowing up innocent people for completely bullshit reasons.

      Russia and China are both actively taking land that wasn't theirs, right now. Look around. Be glad you're not in the Ukraine or on an island less than half the Pacific east of China (unless you are a comrade). Russia blew up an airliner while instigating the "quote" civil war "unquote" in Ukraine and immediately dropped a ton of lies on top of it to cover it up. Their misinformation campaign is solid - lying is the thing they seem to be the best at. China: all you have to say is Tiananmen Square. This is the level of atrocities that these governments are capable of. Imagine the West falling to that.

      It just sucks to live in a country responsible (not just actively pursuing - actually *responsible*) for the freedoms enjoyed by a large part of the world we live in, which is also honest enough to fess up to its mistakes. I was just born on the wrong side of the planet, I guess.

    3. Re:What a bunch of projection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has openly declared their intention to be the world leader in AI by 2030. Do you really think that they won't use such an advantage for military purposes? If you don't understand what China and Russia do to maintain their power at home or abroad then you are an ignorant fool. I assure you that China and Russia are much more vicious than the United States and are perfectly willing and able to kill in pursuit of their goals. The evil in this world has an objective reality quite apart from whether or not you believe it's a problem. The only proven way to guarantee peace is to be ready for war. Si vis pacem para bellum.

    4. Re:What a bunch of projection by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You're confusing inclinations and ethics with power and ability.

      A psychopath that is paralyzed is not going to axe murder anyone.

      If we took Nazi Germany prior to WW2 and used some rhetorical magic to remove Germany's ABILITY to engage in a world war... just remove the industry for the sake of argument... they would not have engaged in that war.

      Russia made very clear during its soviet period that it was very capable and very interested in going to war to expand its empire.

      When the Islamic world was hegemonic it was likewise very interested in such things.

      If the US lost hegemonic power and some other power held it, then you'd be dealing with the same thing by a power that wouldn't have ANY empathy for your position.

      The US for all its sins is not trying to build an empire beyond its shores. We preserve our hegemony but not much more beyond that.

      If the US ceded its hegemony, then not only would you be dealing with a new power with a new ethical ideal.... but you'd also be dealing with them preserving their hegemony... and MAYBE you'd be dealing with them attempting to conquer as well.

      Be aware of world history. Back out and see the span of the human experience over the last 10,000 years. What given that knowledge leads you to believe that if the US ceded its hegemony you'd be in a world of peace and harmony?

      Process the absurdity of your position.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:What a bunch of projection by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      China has a single aircraft carrier, a sloppy jallopy they got second hand. The United States has a thousand military bases around the world - can you name a single one that China has?

      You tough guy bedwetters can stop trying to make this comparison happen. It's not going to happen.

    6. Re:What a bunch of projection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is the biggest air force in the world? The U.S. Air Force.

      Which is the second biggest air force in the world? The U.S. Navy.

    7. Re:What a bunch of projection by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      You're confusing inclinations and ethics with power and ability.

      Uh, no, that's what Western Exceptionalists do. The prime minister of Bumbfuckistan, with a GDP equivalent to that of the Dallas Cowboys, might want to spy on the electronic communications of every person on the planet. So it's A-OK if the NSA/CIA actually does it.

      Russia made very clear during its soviet period that it was very capable and very interested in going to war to expand its empire.

      Having taken it up the ass from western empires two times in less than 150 years, the USSR wanted a buffer against future western aggression. A fear that American presidents have shown to be completely irrational paranoia, by breaking a promise not to expand NATO in return for German unification. /s

      The anti-Russian alliance has nearly doubled in size, expanded right to Russia's border, deployed a fleet to the Black Sea (like Putin sending a carrier group to the Gulf of Mexico). And you have artillery units in range of St. Petersburg, Russia's second largest city. I'm sure you'd be totally ok if Putin overthrew the elected government of Canada (what Obama did to Ukraine) and had artillery units in range of New York City.

      If the US lost hegemonic power and some other power held it

      The only countries interested in global hegemony are the United States, France and England - so your own country plus your shitbag allies. If Russia wanted an empire, they wouldn't have just cut their already tiny defense budget to $45 billion dollars. The U.S. spends ten times that much - then another three times on top of that. If China wanted an empire, they wouldn't have a single second hand aircraft carrier. They'd be building their own carrier fleets instead of a high speed rail network all the way to Europe.

      What given that knowledge leads you to believe that if the US ceded its hegemony you'd be in a world of peace and harmony?

      Your straw man aside, the United States far far FAR and away the worst purveyor of death, instability and outright terrorism since WWII. You could add up the next dozen countries of your choice and together they wouldn't hold a candle to the American Empire.

    8. Re:What a bunch of projection by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      To prove you are listening and understand what I'm saying, please explain my point in your own words regarding "confusing inclinations and ethics with power and ability". I explained my point in detail above and how that relates to a concept of replacing Western hegemony with some alternative hegemony.

      I want to see if you can even do it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:What a bunch of projection by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I understand that you're rambling instead of making any response to any of the numerous points I've raised. Go on, Sparky, give it a try.

    10. Re:What a bunch of projection by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      I didn't ramble. I asked you to show that you've read anything I've said. Because what you seem like is a crazy person that is talking to himself.

      Last chance. Answer the question from the previous post or prove my point.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  67. National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The United States could dismiss the entire Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force tomorrow and have more than enough for it's actual defense needs. You even seen a globe, bro? The United States is surrounded by the world's largest oceans and two friendly allies. You've faced one invasion in your entire history, 200 years ago, and for a war you started.

    In national defense, we've been falling backward (in relation to Russia and China) for the last few decades. Our main battle tanks are two generations behind Russia's and their air defense systems are also greatly enhanced. Iran successfully took over one of our most sophisticated drones and captured in, a couple years ago, using electronic warfare... Although we have the F-22 and the F-35 jets, we are falling in most other areas and are even behind in some.

    Russia's entire defense budget is $45 billion dollars. You spend over a trillion. The United States doesn't need to defend itself from the rest of the world. The rest of the world needs to defend itself from the United States.

    It's not Russia occupying Europe with 30 installations in Germany alone. It's not China starting wars for bullshit reasons and assassinating people on the other side of the planet from it. It's all you. It's only you, and your terrorist allies Saudi Arabia and Israel.

    1. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally the only redpilled comment in the whole thread.

    2. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two invasions. Tecumseh and Brock captured Detroit in 1812 to control the Michigan Territory.

      Thanks to strategic military propaganda and bungling, the USA in that war managed to turn largely sympathetic colonists living north of the border into a group became fiercely opposed to American expansion, and self-identified as Canadians for the first time. Funny things happen when you tell your sympathizers that you're going to kill and torture them and their families.

      When it bothers to think about it at all, the US believes it won that war, despite bungling a fairly strong chance to have virtually the whole continent.

    3. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because we beat down everyone else who was trying it. Would you rather it was someone else? Texas and Hawaii were invaded, though Texas wasn't officially part of the country at the time. Japan send air balloons to bomb the west coast. A few made it.

      Don't blame us for being able to keep some type of peace with our neighbors. Stop hating each other.

    4. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The war of 1812 is the invasion I'm referring to - 200 years ago (and counting some change). I don't break out Detroit from the British burning DC because it was part of the larger war (and only a territory at the time) but if you want to break it out to separate campaigns that's fair.

      Thanks to strategic military propaganda and bungling, the USA in that war managed to turn largely sympathetic colonists living north of the border into a group became fiercely opposed to American expansion, and self-identified as Canadians for the first time. Funny things happen when you tell your sympathizers that you're going to kill and torture them and their families.

      More funny things will happen when the petrodollar collapses as a Chinese/Russian alliance grows. Hopefully the John Bolton's will be no where near any positions of power when that happens.

    5. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That's because we beat down everyone else who was trying it.

      Really? So you beat down the French and forced them out of Vietnam? You intervened in Kenya to stop Churchill's torture camps in Kenya? The only people "trying it" are you and your allies.

    6. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States could dismiss the entire Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force tomorrow and have more than enough for it's actual defense needs.

      What do you propose that we use instead? Harsh language? Flower power? Grow up.

      You even seen a globe, bro? The United States is surrounded by the world's largest oceans and two friendly allies.

      Neither of which stopped Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The world is much smaller than you think it is and it is getting smaller every day. The oceans no longer protect as they once did last century.

      The United States doesn't need to defend itself from the rest of the world. The rest of the world needs to defend itself from the United States.

      And yet a great number of nations seem perfectly happy to free-ride off of American defense spending. The EU nations for instance or how about Japan? The actions of most of the rest of the nations of this world don't support the conclusion that they're worried about military invasion by the United States.

      It's not Russia occupying Europe with 30 installations in Germany alone.

      And how quickly would you see the German politicians crying out and falling over themselves to beg the United States not to leave if we proposed closing those bases and bringing the troops home? How would Putin view that move? Maybe Ukraine was just an appetizer. You should be careful what you wish for or would you prefer Russian occupation and Kremlin rule?

      It's not China starting wars for bullshit reasons and assassinating people on the other side of the planet

      The Chinese are biding their time, waiting for the opportune moment. Sooner or later the Taiwan issue or their claims to the eastern Pacific are going to come to a head and when that day comes you will see just how willing the Chinese are to wage war in pursuit of their interests. War mongers indeed.

      It's only you, and your terrorist allies Saudi Arabia and Israel.

      Smart nations look out for their own interests and form long term alliances with other nations having shared interests and compatible values. That is the source of much US strength, many times more powerful than military force alone.

    7. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You've faced one invasion in your entire history, 200 years ago, and for a war you started."

      That is debatable. I would consider the British enslaving American sailors an act of war.

    8. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes I wish we would disengage from the world and build two walls to the north and south and only worry about our defense. Then, you would be speaking Chinese or Russian and we wouldn't have to listen to your nonsense because you wouldn't have a right to express you opinion under your new masters.

      I hope you don't live in the US.

    9. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To pick a nit, the US is surrounded by -two- of the world's largest oceans. Its eastern border is secured by the Atlantic and its western border is secured by the Pacific.

      Regarding your last argument, "It's not Russia occupying Europe...", I don't know if you consider the Ukraine to be Europe but the reason the US is there is because we want to discourage Russia from blitzkrieging its way up to the Spanish border.
       
        Several of your other points are valid, though. Hope this helps when you lob mud at us in the future!

    10. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One-sided much or is it just a troll?

      Don't confuse border defense with defense of a country's interests.
      Budget numbers are largely irrelevant. Results of the budget maybe more so and that is a little more balanced.
      The US doesn't "occupy" Europe. It's either a request of the country that hosts the installations or negotiated with the country to meet common goals. Using the word occupy in this context not remotely accurate.
      You could argue that the US sometimes supports terrorists through funding or weapons. It's not a good thing and it's certainly not "only" the US and their allies. As far as the US engaging in terrorism itself, that's pretty rare. (think CIA, etc.) The US does many things, but terrorism isn't high on the list.

      It's a shame that you didn't put more thought into your comments. It's not like the US (or any country on the planet) is perfect and you might have said something constructive in pointing that out.

    11. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      Reality has a well-known ant-American-Exceptionalist bias. You're a goldfish swimming in a CIA fishtank that's never been cleaned - you're up to your eyeballs in shit but it's the only thing you've ever known, so you have zero awareness of it.

      Don't like it? Come up with a list of countries bombed/overthrown over the entire history of the USSR/modern Russia and compare it to the list of what the U.S. has done over the last 18 years alone. Then remember your worldwide kidnapping and torture program, which is about to see one of it's actors named to the top spot at the CIA. Then blow all your exceptionalist bullshit out your ass.

    12. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Regarding your last argument, "It's not Russia occupying Europe...", I don't know if you consider the Ukraine to be Europe but the reason the US is there is because we want to discourage Russia from blitzkrieging its way up to the Spanish border.

      In 2018, that's as embarrassing as saying the United States invaded Iraq because Saddam planned 911. It was the United States that overthrew Ukraine's elected government, not Russia. And Russia didn't get in bed with literal neo-Nazis to do so. It also wasn't Russia that doubled the size of the Warsaw Pact (after promising not to to allow German unification) or shredding the ABM treaty.

    13. Re:National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wish we would disengage from the world and build two walls to the north and south and only worry about our defense. Then, you would be speaking Chinese or Russian and we wouldn't have to listen to your nonsense because you wouldn't have a right to express you opinion under your new masters.

      How many countries have Russia and China put together invaded over the last 100 years? Compared to how many the United States has just this century.

      So you use plastic sheets or Depends for your bedwetting?

  68. Of course that's war criminal talk by Uberbah · · Score: 0

    but do something to support the legitimate aims of government and defend the nation

    WTF is legit about murdering people that have never done a damned thing to you, in countries the US hasn't declared war on? You a reincarnated member of the Gestapo, or something?

  69. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't have a country. Your country has you, or rather, is supposed to, but you don't hold up your end. If you fail to grasp the basic tenets of citizenship then kindly pipe the fuck down, it's getting to be beyond embarrassing for the rest of us who still have a modicum of dignity.

  70. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would. Love. To see my guess at who you are and what you look like in their situation. The screenplay is forming in my head as I deride you in this very moment.

  71. GTFO by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Uh... The people using the drones are the ones asking for an AI to tell them "Even though the local informant said this was a training camp, it looks more like a wedding".

    Those weren't accidents. Like all of the war crimes committed by Bush, then by Obama and now Trump, they were deliberate choices. Get the fuck out of countries that have never done a thing to you and stop your campaigns of mass terrorism. Which is what drones are.

  72. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The native American weren't sharing it actually. They were fighting over it.

  73. Re: Awww, those poor widdle snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something's wrong with your comment, I think you were trying to use an apostrophe but there was a character encoding issue and the whole thing got replaced with the limp braying of a spoiled 63 year old. Try restarting

  74. If we're going to kill people with drones... by ebyrob · · Score: 2

    Maybe it would be a good idea to let Google help process the footage to see who and what got blown up?

    Seriously though, the data is already there, now suddenly it's a big moral dilemma to process it and understand what's going on?

    1. Re:If we're going to kill people with drones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's start at your location then!

  75. Re:Better just to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> better off under Communist rule than under the Taliban.

    That is an interesting point that I've never heard before. Thanks for sharing.

  76. "Defense" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

    1. Re: "Defense" by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      And definitely, neither do you.

  77. Phase conjugate target tracking system by technosaurus · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the movie Real Genius. Its all fun and lasers until someone brings out the phase conjugate target tracking system.

  78. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The legal problems with native Americans is a test bed for our justice system to stage mock jury and trials in order to get a leg up on public opinion concerning ethical treatment of modern day dinosaurs that practice tribal law.

  79. "Don't be evil" was just misdirection by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Used to keep people friendly until they were large enough to show their true colors. Corporations lie and they lie about important stuff. So this is not really a surprise at all.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  80. Fewer mistakes still a worthy achievement by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    ..oh, and never mind the fact that these so-called 'AIs' ...will inevitably make mistakes, which will lead to non-combatants being targeted and killed.

    That's not the thing to worry about. What you need to ask is whether this system will result in fewer mistakes than whatever system they currently have. Fewer mistakes means fewer innocents killed which is something everyone should want. It's true that the best way to do this is to stop shooting but, so long as someone is shooting, making sure they have the best possible support to make the right decision about whom to shoot is not a bad thing.

  81. You're an asshole. by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Its meaningless virtue signaling

    No. It's called having a moral compass, you stupid, stupid fuck. They're giving up lucrative jobs so that they don't participate in building weapons. It's the exact opposite of "virtue signalling". They're putting their money where their mouths are.

    You're right. They're free to work where ever they want to, but to call them phonies for quitting a weapon company makes you a complete and total asshole. You would have happily been a Nazi because, "hey, opposing them is futile.". If the world were made up of people who all agreed with you, the human race would be extinct, already.

    Go fuck yourself.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:You're an asshole. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Its a moral compass only if its a childish conception of morality that has no right to be respected by anyone over the age of 20.

      The weapons will be developed.
      The weapons must be developed.
      If the weapons were not developed then if anything any moral principle being advocated would be damaged.

      See, this is the perspective of maturity. Understanding that something that might from a very limited perspective seem bad in a wider perspective is good.

      How is the world a better place with Russia or China etc having a military advantage? Want to see those powers enact their will on the world by force? Because that's currently restrained by US power.

      And what do you think happens when the US's military supremacy is questionable? War. They will challenge the US and her allies for hegemony and that will mean war. And if you've done a good job and really given the US a real disadvantage then the US could lose.

      Then you get to profess your irrelevant and childish moral system to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

      This is not moral virtue you're advocating... its childishness. The world is not an ideal place of magical ponies and singing rainbows. What peace and justice you see in the world was paid for in blood, sweat, and tears. It wasn't easy. Weaken the US and US moral and ethical beliefs become less relevant in the world.

      And that doesn't mean that French ethics will become relevant because the Europeans for all their whining are not actually interested in projecting hegemony anymore. Which means the world order will be set by those willing to project their values by force. And that won't be people like you. It will be the Islamists, the various radical ideologies, the empire builders... Nuclear war would be pretty likely in that case.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  82. bu-bye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, Google is hiring.

  83. More concience cleaning than protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I resigned in a linguistic services provider for Microsoft. It took a heavy weight out of my back.
    The following unemployed year was hard, but I don't regret it. Working for evil feels terrible.
    They will achieve their goals anyway, but I'm not going to be part of it.

  84. Re: Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! Let's keep the geniuses who discriminate against white males and get rid of the snowflakes who don't want to play a role in safeguarding the nation.

  85. Screw those employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donâ(TM)t want to benefit this nation, move somewhere else. Work somewhere else. Line your pockets while serving the Chinese or Russians.

  86. GP's not wrong by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    we've got the people, we're just not using them effectively. That said, for decades our military has been a cheap place to train pilots and engineers, hence the reason for 'up and out'. It's remarkably difficult to get Americans to pay for roads and schools but defense (read:war)? They'll blow money all day long.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  87. Open source tools being used by Alok · · Score: 2

    The linked article says Google is basically a contractor helping with configuration & setup of open source tools; and even if they backed out the same project could be done by other companies too.

    If this is true, then I find it hard to be so upset at them. Agreed, Google's level of expertise in setting up ML systems is far more advanced than most smaller companies, and probably a bit ahead of even their biggest competitors. However, its basically an installation that would happen with or without them; and more likely to be misconfigured if someone else is the military vendor ... which won't just lead to an ineffective system, it will only mean more overspending until the military does have the capabilities it wants.

    So, why not let the ML experts create a usable system which will only save some time and money over them turning down the wad of military cash and seeing someone else get it? Of course, I'm assuming that the claim of everything used being existing open source is actually true.

  88. Re: Good riddance by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Slashdot was never a 'Tech' board nor ever meant to be one. 'Tech' is a sub-category of the rather gregarious interests of the nerd subculture. It is a topic, among many others' that is of interest.

    You pinks and vanilla mainstreamers can get kinda annoying with your assumptions. Yes, CS was a worthy 'career choice' and now you're in IT and doing fine. Keep outta the way with your assumptions.

  89. Re:That's only because it can't be done in real ti by morkk · · Score: 1

    we'll have fully automated kill bots
    and they will be in the employ of the 1% to keep us off their lawns

  90. Doesn't matter by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

    At the end of the day, all these people gave up is their jobs with Google. They're not going to stop the ball rolling with this act. There's plenty of people with less-than-perfect moral compass that'll fill those shoes.

    Commendable, but I think it'd been much braver to keep your job and fight against this from the inside. Quitting is just quitting.

  91. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they cover their fucking faces

    Is that the reason you post anonymously?

    And they hate gay people

    and

    faggot

    Ooh, but the self-hate is strong in this one.

  92. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you just try to play the 'do you want to take this outside?' on the internet?

    Seriously?

    You're new at this trolling thing, aren't you?

  93. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by another_twilight · · Score: 1

    If it were a polygamous society, the women would be able to have multiple husbands as well. Now for a 50/50 society every man and every woman has the same potential number of partners.

    The problem is that women have less rights than men.

  94. US, not Russia, overthrew Ukraine's government by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Hillary's flunky at State is on video - in front of banners for western oil companies - bragging about how the U.S. spent five biiiiiiiilion dollars to "bring Ukraine the future it deserves". And then you melting snowflakes complain about a few thousand dollars in online ads from a Twitter troll farm changing your election.

    So even if the crap about Russia invading Ukraine wasn't just bs pulled out of the CIA's ass, it would be infinitely more justified than any American "intervention" you can name. As for China, it's always laid claim to those islands - and who are you to dispute that with them? You're free to tell the whole world what to do, but China can't even play around in its Gulf of Mexico? Get the fuck outta here.

    It just sucks to live in a country responsible (not just actively pursuing - actually *responsible*) for the freedoms enjoyed by a large part of the world we live in, which is also honest enough to fess up to its mistakes. I was just born on the wrong side of the planet, I guess.

    No. You were born with your head in a warm, dark place, given the fact that the U.S. has overthrown dozens of democracies since WWII, is responsible for tens of millions of deaths, and supports three quarters of the world's dictatorships. Including the worst one, Saudi Arabia.

  95. Vitriol and Free Speech by JohnDemko · · Score: 1

    Team: Recently a man advised me that just because someone CAN eat two whoppers; that doesnâ(TM)t mean they SHOULD eat two whoppers. I think the same adage fits here. Just because we CAN be vitriolic, angry, and crude in posts; doesnâ(TM)t mean we SHOULD do so. Iâ(TM)m in the Army so Iâ(TM)m no fan of war. Itâ(TM)s awful, ugly, and yes often innocent people die. Itâ(TM)s horrible. HOwever, there are a lot of bad folks out there who need bullets in their foreheads and MAVEN may ( emphasis on may) improve the process. Itâ(TM)s a very dangerous world as all the current and former military on this thread likely already know. Thnx and hugz, John

  96. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to Democrats and leftists. You're a racist if you criticize Islam, it's treatment of women, extreme homophobia, etc.

  97. Re: frist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You both spelled frist psot wrong

  98. Many thanks, stupid millenial snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a veteran, and an older geek who deeply loves this country, I'm just fine with these dirtbags opting out.

    Of course, I'm a bit biased for another reason - their loss could be my gain. I've done my share of design work on defense systems these people think are beneath them. I'll not explain the morals of it here, the curious can get a summary from actor Bradley Cooper playing Chris Kyle in "American Sniper".

    We do not need the sort of sloppy, incompetent and immature developers who tend to work at internet-related companies. We need to write every line of code we use and fully understand it. We have to do our own schematics and fully understand them. Bailing wire, chewing gum, band aids, and other people's code/circuits are simply unacceptable in a weapons system. With immature idiots like these folks around, I'm gonna be really busy until I die of old age.

  99. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I thought the same... playing internet tough-guy in 2018.

  100. Re:If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    your a troll

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  101. Re:Good riddance by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Well, that should free up some space in the cry room... These silicon valley types that work for fascist companies like fakedouche, giggle, snapcrap, etc. are the biggest bunch of hypocrites and self-serving asshats I have ever had the displeasure to encounter. You snowflake fucks will be the first against the wall.

    If you get all bent out shape that 'snowflakes' are doing their thing, that really doesn't affect you in the slightest. Do you not think that makes you a snowflake? I would say it does so fuckoff snowflake and go moan to someone who cares. Maybe try childline.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  102. A dozen people. oh my by whoda · · Score: 1

    12 people quit, and Google didn't even notice.
    I'm sure they've had at least 12 people quit over cafeteria menu choices, where's the story about that?

  103. Because they know how poorly the AI works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears some commenters are missing the point. Yes, there are high-minded and/or principled former-workers who do not want their efforts turned into weapons of war, in any sense.

    There are also, we may assume, workers who know good and well how many, many mistakes the AI is going to make -- is that a hut or a boulder? Then now know that people will die as a result. So there is (likely) a practical, don't-sue-me-when-you-die basis where Google corporate (and MANY others) are over-selling the promise of AI.

    We see this with every new technology. Go watch the Terminator or The Matrix films for examples. Or better yet, go re-read Rumplestiltskin or Sleeping Beauty. When the spinning wheel technology "invaded" Western Europe, people panicked. Especially the wool industry. There were full-on torch and pitchfork riots where they burned spinning wheels, just like in Sleeping Beauty, because with this new technology, who knew just how much it could do? Would it spin straw into gold, per Rumplestiltskin?

    Nope. So nope.

    But the AI-is-the-future marketing/panic is much the same as it was for spinning wheels in the 14th century. AI will be a tool, with marked limits (as with any tool) and little more. It'll change some things, but human life will remain much the same (sorry).

    So what we see here is the Pentagon falling for the new-tech hype and the actual creators saying, "It can't do that reliably," and washing their hands of the tech now that lives are at stake. (Not that lives weren't at stake already; they just realized it when the Pentagon got directly involved.)

    Regardless, I wholeheartedly applaud them. And suspect there are newer/better jobs waiting for them all.

  104. Re: If you didn't want to kill ragheads... by another_twilight · · Score: 1

    While it is useful to define groups of people by common characteristics and then describe behaviour of the group, to assume that any member of the group shares equally all the characteristics of the definition or the behaviour can be erroneous.

    I'm happy to criticise the inequity of some aspects of some Muslim societies. I'm probably left enough in a lot of my opinions that I'd fall into your characterisation of 'leftist' and/or 'Democrat' although neither are a good fit (roughly, I'm socially far left, economically centrist (ish), but have some odd opinions that would normally place me socially far right, for eg on some issues).

    If you've taken criticism of a group and applied it to an individual, you're falling for one of the -ism errors and may well have been fairly criticised for being racist. If you've criticised a group, fairly, and distinguish between other examples and/or individuals within that group then the accusation may have been unfair.

    But frankly, very few people are using the term 'racist/sexist/foo-ist' accurately and given your use of 'Democrat' and 'leftist' it sounds like you're just as guilty of confusing generalisations and individuals. The map is not the territory. Abstraction is great so long as you remember that's what you're doing.

    How about instead of perpetuating the problem, you stop calling people 'Democrats' and 'leftists' and criticise the behaviour of the individuals you encounter?