Google Employees Resign in Protest Against Pentagon Contract (gizmodo.com) 469
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.
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.
Of course (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.
Re:Of course (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".
Re:Of course (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
As if corporations are somehow less evil, less prone to abuses of power than governments?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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/.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
which are pseudo-intelligent at best, not real Artificial Intelligence
Pseudo, fake, artificial. That's what artificial means.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"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 recogn
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2, 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?
Re: Of course (Score:2)
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
Re: Of course (Score:4, 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.
Re:Of course (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Autonomous killbots (Score:2, Insightful)
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 wa
Re: (Score:3)
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 secur
Re:Of course (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".
Re: Of course (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, 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 g
Re: Of course (Score:5, 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.
Re: Of course (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: Of course (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> The sociopaths are the ones using drones to bomb weddings.
So you're saying Obama is a sociopath.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
You mistake the divide of this apartheid as being between Jews and Arabs when it's actually between Israelis and Palestinians.
Re: Of course (Score:2)
By voting for Nixon, obviously.
Google branching out.. (Score:3, 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?"
Re: (Score:3)
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."
Re: (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 a
Nothing noble about harming others (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
I would think, harming a criminal in defense of the weak — when there is no threat to yourself
unemployable or passionate? (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 dis
Re: unemployable or passionate? (Score:3)
I want people that believe in our mission working at my company.
Resign or... (Score:2)
Have we passed Peak Google? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Have we passed Peak Google? (Score:5, Informative)
National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
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.
Re:National Defense is Critical -- Cannot Deny It. (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 weapo
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 kno
National Defense is a Cult of Bedwetters (Score:4, 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.
Russia's entire defense budget is $45 billion dollars. You spend over [motherjones.com] 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.
Google's motto (Score:3)
I don't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
..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.
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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 Pentag
Re: (Score:2)
Can I be hired instead ? (Score:2)
In other news (Score:2)
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.
What a bunch of idiots... (Score:4, 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.
What a bunch of projection (Score:4, 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. [motherjones.com]
Not surprising . . . (Score:2)
Standard intelligence policy actually (Score:4, 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.
Dozen Out of 75,000+ Employees (Score:2)
If we're going to kill people with drones... (Score:3)
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?
"Don't be evil" was just misdirection (Score:3)
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.
Open source tools being used (Score:3)
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
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.
Doesn't matter (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the objection to precision drone strikes.
Because it's a terrorist activity.
Re: Better just to kill everyone? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better just to kill everyone? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
blockaded, sanctioned, and embargoed Saudi Arabia
Until....when exactly? What would the end game of that be?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee you that would have resulted in a war....I doubt the outcome would have been any different than the current situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.....but they aren't the only ones, you'd have to include the Iranians as well as Afghanistan.
Re:Better just to... (Score:2)
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 s
It wasn't a few Trillion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Better just to kill everyone? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One man's stigma is another man's ideal qualification.
Re: (Score:2)
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 employe
You can only do what you control (Score:2)
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 Goog
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowflakes (Score:2, 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.
Re: Snowflakes (Score:3)
Sounds like a very useful algorithm. I'm sure some snowflake will pay you good money for that.