<story><title>Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jsilence</author><text>please help me understand how a substance that turns sand into soil, developed to green the deserts, can be used as a weapon.&lt;p&gt;To me this argument that &amp;quot;anything can be used in evil ways&amp;quot; is a poor excuse used to distract from the issue.</text></item><item><author>colordrops</author><text>Almost any technology can be weaponized.  It&amp;#x27;s not about the particular technology you  work on, but who it&amp;#x27;s being built for and the intended application.</text></item><item><author>cmontella</author><text>As a roboticist at the beginning of my career working on drones, I decided then and there that I would never make &amp;quot;bombs&amp;quot;, a metaphor I used to mean anything that could be weaponized. I realized a lot of the work I was doing was funded by DARPA, and I was very cognizant about my research being used in this way. And like Dr. Kearns suggests, it&amp;#x27;s not entirely black and white. Would my path planning algorithm be used to more efficiently deliver scientific payloads to the atmosphere, or would it be used to route missiles to maximize casualties? Hard to really say, but I&amp;#x27;ve avoided overtly military applications (even things like BigDog, designed to carry equipment for troops).&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the distinction is even more insidious. I did work on perpetual flight for drones, and Facebook had a perpetual flight project that had the goal of bringing internet access to remote locations in Africa. Sounds humanitarian, but I also didn&amp;#x27;t want to be responsible for subjecting poor Africans to what I consider Facebook&amp;#x27;s panopticon. Or maybe it would have been a net boon for the region? It&amp;#x27;s really hard to tell a priori, so the best I have managed for myself is just to try and stay in theory, where developments are further removed from direct consequence.</text></item><item><author>betolink</author><text>From the movie &amp;quot;Flash of Genius&amp;quot; about Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I can&amp;#x27;t think of a job or a career where the understanding of ethics is more important than engineering,&amp;quot; Dr. Kearns continues. &amp;quot;Who designed the artificial aortic heart valve? An engineer did that. Who designed the gas chambers at Auschwitz? An engineer did that, too. One man was responsible for helping save tens of thousands of lives. Another man helped kill millions.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Now, I don&amp;#x27;t know what any of you are going to end up doing in your lives,&amp;quot; Dr. Kearns says, &amp;quot;but I can guarantee you that there will come a day when you have a decision to make. And it won&amp;#x27;t be as easy as deciding between a heart valve and a gas chamber.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;To me this is incredibly valid for Silicon Valley engineers these days.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mekoka</author><text>Just because you can&amp;#x27;t see the destructive nature of a technology does not mean it doesn&amp;#x27;t have one. Sometimes it&amp;#x27;s a matter of perspective and context.&lt;p&gt;When gunpowder was invented the purpose was medicinal, three centuries later we had cannons.&lt;p&gt;Many things in our world seem positive on the onset, but give it some time and start looking from different angles and you&amp;#x27;re bound to find some potentially detrimental use.&lt;p&gt;Granted some inventions like nuclear energy and nitroglycerin, both intended for constructive purposes, have a more obvious destructive potential. An example that better connects with your question is a company such as Monsanto.</text></comment>
<story><title>Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jsilence</author><text>please help me understand how a substance that turns sand into soil, developed to green the deserts, can be used as a weapon.&lt;p&gt;To me this argument that &amp;quot;anything can be used in evil ways&amp;quot; is a poor excuse used to distract from the issue.</text></item><item><author>colordrops</author><text>Almost any technology can be weaponized.  It&amp;#x27;s not about the particular technology you  work on, but who it&amp;#x27;s being built for and the intended application.</text></item><item><author>cmontella</author><text>As a roboticist at the beginning of my career working on drones, I decided then and there that I would never make &amp;quot;bombs&amp;quot;, a metaphor I used to mean anything that could be weaponized. I realized a lot of the work I was doing was funded by DARPA, and I was very cognizant about my research being used in this way. And like Dr. Kearns suggests, it&amp;#x27;s not entirely black and white. Would my path planning algorithm be used to more efficiently deliver scientific payloads to the atmosphere, or would it be used to route missiles to maximize casualties? Hard to really say, but I&amp;#x27;ve avoided overtly military applications (even things like BigDog, designed to carry equipment for troops).&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the distinction is even more insidious. I did work on perpetual flight for drones, and Facebook had a perpetual flight project that had the goal of bringing internet access to remote locations in Africa. Sounds humanitarian, but I also didn&amp;#x27;t want to be responsible for subjecting poor Africans to what I consider Facebook&amp;#x27;s panopticon. Or maybe it would have been a net boon for the region? It&amp;#x27;s really hard to tell a priori, so the best I have managed for myself is just to try and stay in theory, where developments are further removed from direct consequence.</text></item><item><author>betolink</author><text>From the movie &amp;quot;Flash of Genius&amp;quot; about Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I can&amp;#x27;t think of a job or a career where the understanding of ethics is more important than engineering,&amp;quot; Dr. Kearns continues. &amp;quot;Who designed the artificial aortic heart valve? An engineer did that. Who designed the gas chambers at Auschwitz? An engineer did that, too. One man was responsible for helping save tens of thousands of lives. Another man helped kill millions.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Now, I don&amp;#x27;t know what any of you are going to end up doing in your lives,&amp;quot; Dr. Kearns says, &amp;quot;but I can guarantee you that there will come a day when you have a decision to make. And it won&amp;#x27;t be as easy as deciding between a heart valve and a gas chamber.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;To me this is incredibly valid for Silicon Valley engineers these days.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>headsoup</author><text>Depends on whether you see this &amp;#x27;greening the desert&amp;#x27; as destructive to the environment or not I suppose.&lt;p&gt;And then perhaps there&amp;#x27;s a question of who owns this now greened and more usable desert?...</text></comment>