Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Workers' Letter Demands Company Drop $479 Million HoloLens Military Contract (theverge.com)
A group of Microsoft workers have addressed top executives in a letter demanding the company drop a controversial contract with the U.S. army. The Verge reports: The workers object to the company taking a $479 million contract last year to supply tech for the military's Integrated Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS. Under the project, Microsoft, the maker of the HoloLens augmented reality headset, could eventually provide more than 100,000 headsets designed for combat and training in the military. The Army has described the project as a way to "increase lethality by enhancing the ability to detect, decide and engage before the enemy." "We are alarmed that Microsoft is working to provide weapons technology to the US Military, helping one country's government 'increase lethality' using tools we built," the workers write in the letter, addressed to CEO Satya Nadella and president Brad Smith. "We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used."
The letter, which organizers say included dozens of employee signatures at publication time, argues Microsoft has "crossed the line into weapons development" with the contract. "Intent to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology," it reads. The workers are demanding the company cancel the contract, stop developing any weapons technology, create a public policy committing to not build weapons technology, and appoint an external ethics review board to enforce the policy. While the letter notes the company has an AI ethics review process called Aether, the workers say it is "not robust enough to prevent weapons development, as the IVAS contract demonstrates." "As employees and shareholders we do not want to become war profiteers," the letter sent today concludes. "To that end, we believe that Microsoft must stop in its activities to empower the U.S. Army's ability to cause harm and violence."
The letter, which organizers say included dozens of employee signatures at publication time, argues Microsoft has "crossed the line into weapons development" with the contract. "Intent to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology," it reads. The workers are demanding the company cancel the contract, stop developing any weapons technology, create a public policy committing to not build weapons technology, and appoint an external ethics review board to enforce the policy. While the letter notes the company has an AI ethics review process called Aether, the workers say it is "not robust enough to prevent weapons development, as the IVAS contract demonstrates." "As employees and shareholders we do not want to become war profiteers," the letter sent today concludes. "To that end, we believe that Microsoft must stop in its activities to empower the U.S. Army's ability to cause harm and violence."
It's hypocritical to take a half stance. Certainly many computers used in every US war are running Microsoft basic products like OSs and data bases. It's evident software is becoming a weapon. What do they suggest? leave the development to Russia and China? Humanity is far from leaving in peace, in the meantime you better keep up.
Why not do both?
Most highly intelligent people will be anti war.
I believe that most highly intelligent people understand that conflict is an inescapable human trait, and no amount of feel-good rhetoric is going to change the fact that there are people in power out there who simply don't give a damn about human life if it stands in the way of their goals, or if taking it will further those goals. If you've got a means of dealing with such people that doesn't involve force, you've got a Nobel Peace Prize waiting for you. "We can use sanctions!" Sure, but how do you go about enforcing those? I mean, it's worked so well for North Korea, right?
It's admirable to be against war and killing, and it'd be great not to need that, but as long as there are those that will kill with impunity, there will be a need to play on their level.
Almost nobody (except fascist dictators wishing to increase their power) is pro-war. The reason otherwise peaceful nations have and maintain a military is pretty simple. Economically, often it's cheaper to simply take resources away from someone else than it is to grow/collect/build them yourself. e.g. The Viking lifestyle of pillaging and raiding. It completely screws over the person you're taking stuff away from, but if you care only about yourself then it is the economically more cost-effective to take stuff away from others.
The goal of everyone not wanting to be screwed over this way then, is to make it more expensive for someone to take your resources away by force, than it would be for them to grow/collect/build the resources themselves. This means maintaining a military which can inflict sufficient damage upon an attacker so that even if they win, the stuff they manage to pillage from you is worth less than the damage they'll sustain from your counterattack. Nobody actually plans to use those military weapons - the threat alone is enough to cause the desired behavior.
Fail to maintain that level of military capability, and you relegate yourself to repeatedly and endlessly being screwed over by others. Your only protection then becomes the pity of others who happen to have sufficient military power to intimidate or force your attacker into stopping.
The pacifist notion that the military is full of bullies and guys with a macho complex who want to beat up and kill others, is rather disconnected from reality. The vast majority of people serving in the military believe their country has a good thing going, and wish to help defend and maintain it. If you don't believe in protecting what we have, then that is your right. But realize that you can enjoy your livelihood and pacifist lifestyle solely because of those willing to fight in your stead. Pacifism is not self-perpetuating; it can only perpetuate when someone else is willing to fight to defend it.
Of course having a military available means it can be mis-used. And a society needs to implement measures to prevent the military from being mis-used that way. But advocating the complete elimination of the military is socio-economic suicide. Nations without a military or a friendly ally with a military tend not to last too long. They get invaded and taken over, and their pacifist government is replaced by their conqueror.