Comment by nradov
2 days ago
How is it a good thing to refuse to provide our warfighters with the tools that they need? I mean if we're going to have a military at all then we owe it to them to give them the best possible weapons systems that minimize friendly casualties. And let's not have any specious claims that LLMs are somehow special or uniquely dangerous: the US military has deployed operational fully autonomous weapons systems since the 1970s.
This is the US military we’re talking about so 95% of what they do is attacking people for oil. They don’t “need” more of anything, they’re funded to the tune of a trillion dollars a year, almost as much as every other military in the world combined. What holy mission do you think they’re going to carry out with the assistance of LLMs?
That's a total non sequitur. If you think the military is being tasked with the wrong missions, or too many missions, then take that up with the civilian political leadership. But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.
Personally I favor a less interventionist foreign policy. But that change can only come about through the political process, not by unaccountable corporate employees making arbitrary decisions about how certain products can be used.
> But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.
Of course it is.
Think about it this way: if you could guarantee that the military suffers no human losses when attacking a foreign country, do you think that's going to more or less foreign interventions?
The tools available to the military influence policy, these things are linked.
US military is already overwhelmingly powerful, there's 0 reason to make it even more powerful.
6 replies →
> If you think the military is being tasked with the wrong missions, or too many missions, then take that up with the civilian political leadership. But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.
It is an ethical dilemma: believing an armed force will act unethically is in fact a valid reason to refuse to arm them. You are taking a nationalistic view regarding the worth of life.
And if you believe it is unethical to arm them, it is rational to use whatever leverage you have available to you - such as refusing to sell your company's product.
Furthermore, one of the two points at issue was regarding surveiling civilians.
> that change can only come about through the political process
What, to you, is the political process? Why is wielding your economic leverage to incite change illegitimate to you?
"How is it a good thing to refuse to provide our warfighters with the tools that they need?"
Perhaps you should consider that this is a loaded question. I don't think HN needs this sort of Argumentum ad Passiones.
Why are you asking this question? You know what the answer is, you've just arbitrarily decided that it's specious in an attempt to frame rebuttals as unreasonable.
I'm open to reasonable rebuttals but all the rebuttals that I've seen so far are simply uninformed.
1. You don't believe in the mission or direction of US warfighters 2. Supporting warfighters is developmentally distinct from what you want your corporate competences and direction are. 3. you don't want military to be more safe an capable.