Google Is Helping the Pentagon Build AI for Drones (gizmodo.com) 95
Google has partnered with the United States Department of Defense to help the agency develop artificial intelligence for analyzing drone footage, a move that set off a firestorm among employees of the technology giant when they learned of Google's involvement, Gizmodo reported on Tuesday. From the report: Google's pilot project with the Defense Department's Project Maven, an effort to identify objects in drone footage, has not been previously reported, but it was discussed widely within the company last week when information about the project was shared on an internal mailing list, according to sources who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the project. Some Google employees were outraged that the company would offer resources to the military for surveillance technology involved in drone operations, sources said, while others argued that the project raised important ethical questions about the development and use of machine learning.
"Don't be evil" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a good article [regimental-standard.com] in the Regimental Standard about letting AI drive military drones being ungodly as well.
Re: (Score:3)
But to a more broad topic, it seems that the majority of the Google workforce is against helping our military?
Why would US citizen be against helping our military which in turn keeps us safe?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it that much of a leap to think that such technology will be used domestically for .. terror/drugs or whatever boogeyman can they can trot out to justify an erosion in privacy and personal liberty?
I'm sorry, but a country which employs FISA courts to try citizens in total secrecy should not be trusted with spy drones; period.
As far as legislation preventing their use domestically, or against the general public -- the government would have absolutely no issue finding or creating a loophole. (private contr
Re: (Score:3)
Because if there's one thing you can absolutely trust, it's that the federal government and the military always follow the law.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as those citizens are not white and male, no one will care.
Re:"Don't be evil" (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is helping the DoD evil? Is everyone supporting the DoD evil?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
DoD does some evil things, plenty of stupid stuff, and good things as well. I served in the military, worked for a defense contractor for several years, and would have no moral problem working on this project. Many other people feel differently. Google knows that, so they tried to keep this project secret. It leaked out, and now they are scrambling to come up with a retroactive justification for the secrecy. As Mark Twain once said: "When in doubt, tell the truth."
Re: (Score:2)
...they tried to keep this project secret. It leaked out... "When in doubt, tell the truth."
That's the most evil thing I see here. Doing work that not all of your employees will approve of is just fine. Trying to hide it from them is a little shady.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is helping the DoD evil? Is everyone supporting the DoD evil?
It all depends. If you're a Democrat and the president is a Republican, then yes. Likewise if you're a Republican and the president is a Democrat, then also yes. But it's alright so long as the president has the same political affiliation as you. So basically, the Googlers complaining about this probably wouldn't have any problem is Hillary was president right now.
Re: (Score:2)
...the Googlers complaining about this probably wouldn't have any problem is Hillary was president right now.
I don't think it's as much left/right as it is Google/not-Google. If this was some start-up that won a DoD image processing contract I don't think there would be "evil" accusations.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's as much left/right as it is Google/not-Google. If this was some start-up that won a DoD image processing contract I don't think there would be "evil" accusations.
I was referring to the employees at Google who were complaining about it, not /.er's complaining about Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, just look at the DoD's track record. Is DoD making the US safer? Is the DoD making the world a better place? Even if we eliminated the military, no country would be in a position to invade US. (We can thank the second amendment for that.) I'm not saying we should eliminate the military completely, but just making a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Is DoD making the US safer?
Yes. If we had no military and no retaliatory capability, Little Rocket Man wouldn't hesitate to fuck us up over our behavior in the Korean War. He's not the only one with a grudge.
Even if we eliminated the military, no country would be in a position to invade US. (We can thank the second amendment for that.)
I think you're grossly overestimating the effectiveness of Joe Sixpack and his Glock when confronted by a trained, armed military squad.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing short of total war would subdue us.
If we completely abandoned the DoD, like was suggested, we'd be reconsidering our position not long after DPRK's missiles started landing. If American citizens, with no military to back them, were getting shot every time they tried to resist invaders, I don't think we'd see enough resistance to repel anyone big enough to make the attempt. This isn't Red Dawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people think that murdering people from afar, when you can't even see who you are killing, is wrong, even evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That goes against all of world history (Score:3)
The fact is, early warfare involved enslaving the men and raping the women. It was focused on the people one was attacking.
Later came wide-area bombing of industrial areas and strategic targets such as bridges, trying to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war against you.
Indiscriminate bombing ala WWII is now illegal under international law. Developed nations recently begun to wage war by sending laser-guided bombs to destroy a particular part of a building which is militarily important, perhaps targeting
You've given evidence of the opposite of what you (Score:2)
If the facts support a certain conclusion, you can present the facts and people can see the clear conclusion.
When you wish to advance a conclusion that is not supported by the facts, you must instead make vague, misleading references that somewhat sound like you're referencing facts, then state the conclusion you want people to draw from your misrepresentations.
You have presented vague, misleading statements which imply the opposite of the actual facts. One can only conclude that this is because you couldn
Gotta disagree with one point (Score:2)
I could highlight the good points you made, and those I agree with. That's boring, though.
- The purpose of war is "to kill people and break things" until the other has had enough and capitulates.
It seems to me "kill people" and "break things" are methods to (probably indirectly) achieve some purpose. Perhaps the purpose is to discourage invasions and the direct method is removing Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Perhaps the purpose is to protect your own people from further attacks by the Japanese and the d
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
.... is the motto of Google's corporate code of conduct, first introduced around 2000. ...
That was Google's motto . . . they have since changed their corporate name to Alphabet
Alphabet's motto is: "Do the right thing."
(Go ahead and "alphabet" for Alphabet's motto, yuck, yuck.)
Not right, as in right wing, but right as in:
"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche's writings do an excellent job in describing the behavior of Silicon Valley companies . . . why do you think they called it
Re: (Score:2)
.... is the motto of Google's corporate code of conduct, first introduced around 2000. ...
Google enables evil already in its search functionality. Just go ahead and Google "How to be evil" [google.com]
Or would it be more evil to censor knowledge?
Image recognition isn't itself evil (even guns themselves are not evil). It is just technology that could be used for good or evil. What people do with technology can be and usually eventually will be evil in some instances.
In terms of the US government, I think it is very much a mixed bag of a history of good and evil. But I would say we are for the most part t
AI not for drones but analysis (Score:2)
They're not using AI to control drones, but to analyze all the imagery collected by them.
How is this different from, say, Facebook analyzing the photos you upload and picking out people that look like other people?
Statement from Eric Schmidt (Score:5, Insightful)
“There’s a general concern in the tech community of somehow the military-industrial complex using their stuff to kill people incorrectly”
If there's ever a sentence where one word changes the entire context of a statement, it's that one - and the last word.
That word is redundant from the perspective of the tech community, but extraordinarily menacing when tacked on to the statement like that.
Don't be evil. Incorrectly.
Re:Statement from Eric Schmidt (Score:4, Informative)
The notion that not all killing is incorrect is not a new one.
E.g. the sixth commandment is often incorrectly translated to 'thou shalt not kill' but is more accurately rendered as 'thou shalt not murder', as a Rabbi complains here :
https://winteryknight.com/2010... [winteryknight.com]
For me, one of the most irksome cases has always been the rendering of the sixth commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." In this form, the quote has been conscripted into the service of diverse causes, including those of pacifism, animal rights, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.
Indeed, "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.
It is, of course, not just a question of etymology. Those ideologies that adduce the commandment in support of their gentle-hearted causes are compelled to feign ignorance of all those other places in the Bible that condone or command warfare, the slaughter of sacrificial animals, and an assortment of methods for inflicting capital punishment.
Meaning there cases where killing is not murder - capital punishment, [wikipedia.org], justified wars, [wikipedia.org] and killing an intruder in your home [wikipedia.org].
Those ancient hebrews were pretty damn based!
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect from books that got translated from aramaic to greek and latin and then from greek and latin into english or german etc. ?
Walking on the water is a phrase that means: strolling along the beach.
A rich man can not go to paradise because a camel can not go through a needle ear: the needle ear is a small passage in Jerusalem, a full loaded camel does not fit threw it. So they get partly unloaded when they need to pass.
I actually learned that in christian religion classes, seems most christian
Re: (Score:2)
Walking on the water is a phrase that means: strolling along the beach.
So, Peter's lack of faith caused him to sink in sand? Or fall sideways into the water? Seems awfully hard to fail at strolling on the beach. I guess maybe that wind that scared him pushed him into the water.
I've heard that "mistranslation" theory before, but it simply does not fit with the rest of the story. Unless you're saying it was the author of Matthew who heard the wrong translation and made the rest of the story up to fit. But if you assume that, you may as well not bother with the mistranslation p
Re: (Score:2)
A needle ear is the end of the needle where put the thread through for sewing. You never used a needle?
Well, walking on water can also mean being on a draft.
But I don't know the story, neither in german/english or original greek. But I thought Petrus was fishing in a boat, or not? He was asked to walk to Jesus literally over the water, not? So because he lacked in faith he sunk ... not really a contradiction. The question would be why Jesus challenged his faith. Perhaps to show him that faith is not magic?
A
Re: (Score:2)
A needle ear is the end of the needle where put the thread through for sewing. You never used a needle?
Ah, you're a German speaker. The German word is Nadelöhr, so you're figuring that since ohr is "ear", öhr is also "ear". I don't think it is, though. I checked a couple of German/English dictionaries, and with two different German-speaking colleagues (one from Berlin, one from Vienna) and both agree that öhr is not the same as ohr.
In English, however, there is no question. The hole in a needle is an eye.
Oh, and yes, I learned to sew, both hand-stitching and with a machine, some 40 years a
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, ...
I was certain I had looked up needle eye a view weeks ago and found needle ear in the dictionary.
Strange tricks the mind does with you sometimes
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus' teachings in the gospels do say killing is wrong, even capital punishment (e.g. the adulterous woman, "he who is without sin cast the first stone"). That does not help a rabbi who sticks with the Torah, but it is there in the bible.
That's disputed.
https://www.christianity.com/b... [christianity.com]
NB - I'm not a Christian, many Christians do support capital punishment and you'll have to take up the compatibility of that with the Bible with them. I do know that the notion that capital punishment is incompatible with Christianity is not one that Christians universally accept.
I see nothing wrong with a person being a pacifist, but at least justify your stance with "I think killing is wrong no matter what" instead "this book says killing is wrong no matter what" (even if the book did say that). One is your own opinion, the other quickly falls into a discussion of etymology and logic because that person is building a cause on a faulty foundation.
It's fairly easy to make up examples where killing is justified - if someone attacks you, I'd say you're allowed to defend yourself. If your country is attacked, I'd say it would be
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be in concordance with my philosophy, one rule of which roughly translates as:
0 It's not worth killing yourself over!
0 It's not worth killing someone else over!
0 All rules have exceptions!
0 It is sometimes ok to kill!
Not Just For Blowing Stuff Up! (Score:2)
There are many Non-lethal uses of drones.
Tracking fires. Monitoring traffic. Surveying sites. Construction inspection. Search and rescue. Hundreds more uses that don't involve explosives.
Take just about any job that used to require a Helicopter can now be done by drone more cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Likely scenario (Score:2)
- Sir! there's a missile coming in!
- Fire our Google Enhanced countermeasures, soldier!
(drone plays advertisement before launch)
* * * No Carrier * * *
We Need It (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then the japanese had surrendered a few month later or starved to death.
The bombs were not dropped "to end the war".
They were dropped to test them in action. There is a reason why the first was an uranium bomb and the second a plutonium bomb, and they dropped in so short succession.
The war in the pacific was more or less already over before they got dropped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we had gone in on foot there would have been hundreds of thousands of American soldiers killed ... and they where starving to death already.
That is unlikely and going in on food was not the point, surround them and blockade them. Japan has no resources, except steel perhaps
However not losing the country to the Russians is a point. On the other hand they did not lose China to the Russians either.
Good 'ole War profiteering (Score:2)
Military Industrial Complex. (Score:1)
You think just because Google is doing this it's something new or bad? The military has always worked with companies and universities to build advanced tech systems, including AI systems. This is nothing new. Why all of a sudden Google does it and it's news? I mean go to all the AI conferences and look at the papers and who funds them, It's all NSF, or DARPA or something government/military. Why do you think it's called the Military Industrial Complex.
Where do you think all the self driving cars and system