The Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler Incident(globalo.com)
globalo.com
The Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler Incident
https://www.globalo.com/history-wwii-charlie-brown-franz-stigler-incident/
12 comments
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lp9-cN_Oog
"If I wouldn't have seen a person at all, I would have shot."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lp9-cN_Oog&t=4m23s
> These men were able to give the counsel they gave because they were operating at an enormous psychological distance from the people who would be maimed and killed by the weapons systems that would result from the ideas they communicated to their sponsors. The lesson, therefore, is that the scientist and technologist must, by acts of will and of the imagination, actively strive to reduce such psychological distances, to counter the forces that tend to remove him from the consequences of his actions.
-- Joseph Weizenbaum
But what happens instead is often enough that this "warm, fuzzy" feeling we get from that (awesome) story, is also evoked for the "awesome technology that can make a real impact to save human lives" or "make wars less bloody" etc.
Bottom line is, it cannot think. Even humans too often don't really think about what they are doing, but our machines cannot, even in their brightest moments. Not on the level we're talking about here, anyway. If they could, we would make damn sure it could not "refuse orders".
That is not a bug, but the feature. And one doesn't build a cannon to then not shoot a cannon ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lp9-cN_Oog&t=4m23s
> These men were able to give the counsel they gave because they were operating at an enormous psychological distance from the people who would be maimed and killed by the weapons systems that would result from the ideas they communicated to their sponsors. The lesson, therefore, is that the scientist and technologist must, by acts of will and of the imagination, actively strive to reduce such psychological distances, to counter the forces that tend to remove him from the consequences of his actions.
-- Joseph Weizenbaum
But what happens instead is often enough that this "warm, fuzzy" feeling we get from that (awesome) story, is also evoked for the "awesome technology that can make a real impact to save human lives" or "make wars less bloody" etc.
Bottom line is, it cannot think. Even humans too often don't really think about what they are doing, but our machines cannot, even in their brightest moments. Not on the level we're talking about here, anyway. If they could, we would make damn sure it could not "refuse orders".
That is not a bug, but the feature. And one doesn't build a cannon to then not shoot a cannon ball.
> one doesn't build a cannon to then not shoot a cannon ball.
"Dark Star" comes to mind:
http://www.cinemah.com/altri/war/carpent.htm
"Dark Star" comes to mind:
http://www.cinemah.com/altri/war/carpent.htm
Trillian led him for a short walk through the light before she said anything more. He stumbled uncertainly after her. The encircling flashlight beams were drooping slightly now as if they were abdicating to this strange, quiet girl who alone in this Universe of dark confusion seemed to know what she was doing.
She turned and faced him, and lightly held both his arms. He was a picture of bewildered misery.
"Tell me," she said.
He said nothing for a moment, while his gaze darted from one of her eyes to the other.
"We ..." he said, "we have to be alone ... I think." He screwed up his face and then dropped his head forward, shaking it like someone trying to shake a coin out of a money box. He looked up again. "We have this bomb now, you see," he said, "it's just a little one."
"I know," she said.
He goggled at her as if she'd said something very strange about beetroots.
"Honestly," he said, "it's very, very little."
"I know," she said again.
"But they say," his voice trailed on, "they say it can destroy everything that exists. And we have to do that, you see, I think. Will that make us alone? I don't know. It seems to be our function, though," he said, and dropped his head again.
"Whatever that means," said a hollow voice from the crowd.
Trillian slowly put her arms around the poor bewildered young Krikkiter and patted his trembling head on her shoulder.
"It's all right," she said quietly, but clearly enough for all the shadowy crowd to hear, "you don't have to do it."
-- Douglas Adams
She turned and faced him, and lightly held both his arms. He was a picture of bewildered misery.
"Tell me," she said.
He said nothing for a moment, while his gaze darted from one of her eyes to the other.
"We ..." he said, "we have to be alone ... I think." He screwed up his face and then dropped his head forward, shaking it like someone trying to shake a coin out of a money box. He looked up again. "We have this bomb now, you see," he said, "it's just a little one."
"I know," she said.
He goggled at her as if she'd said something very strange about beetroots.
"Honestly," he said, "it's very, very little."
"I know," she said again.
"But they say," his voice trailed on, "they say it can destroy everything that exists. And we have to do that, you see, I think. Will that make us alone? I don't know. It seems to be our function, though," he said, and dropped his head again.
"Whatever that means," said a hollow voice from the crowd.
Trillian slowly put her arms around the poor bewildered young Krikkiter and patted his trembling head on her shoulder.
"It's all right," she said quietly, but clearly enough for all the shadowy crowd to hear, "you don't have to do it."
-- Douglas Adams
The Red Baron spared Snoopy, also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WsbOLin8qc
The part about being able to hear Xmas bells from a roaring airplane is dodgy though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WsbOLin8qc
The part about being able to hear Xmas bells from a roaring airplane is dodgy though
You're a Good Man, Franz Stigler.
"Brown flew more missions before the war ended."
There is a deeply cynical part of me that has questions about this story...
There is a deeply cynical part of me that has questions about this story...
Yeah, well- so did Stigler. He kept flying and probably downed a few allied planes along the way.
What I find strange is that a man who would make such a noble gesture as taking care of a wounded enemy, would not simply refuse to take part in such a senseless, destructive war as WWII, in the first place.
But, people are complex animals with contradicting motives. And we can't see into the future.
What I find strange is that a man who would make such a noble gesture as taking care of a wounded enemy, would not simply refuse to take part in such a senseless, destructive war as WWII, in the first place.
But, people are complex animals with contradicting motives. And we can't see into the future.
We don't always get to choose the wars we fight in, but we always have a choice in the way we fight the battles.
> would not simply refuse to take part in such a senseless, destructive war as WWII, in the first place.
It's one thing to say you object to war, it's quite another be be a conscientious objector when the entire world is at war and the penalty for doing so is getting sent to a concentration camp or death[1] or being ostracized by your family and community[2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrkraftzersetzung
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/07/british-consci...
It's one thing to say you object to war, it's quite another be be a conscientious objector when the entire world is at war and the penalty for doing so is getting sent to a concentration camp or death[1] or being ostracized by your family and community[2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrkraftzersetzung
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/07/british-consci...
> What I find strange is that a man who would make such a noble gesture as taking care of a wounded enemy, would not simply refuse to take part in such a senseless, destructive war as WWII, in the first place.
Is it so strange that soldiers have traditions of honorable conduct within the bounds of their profession? The military isn't the unthinking brutes many view them as.
Is it so strange that soldiers have traditions of honorable conduct within the bounds of their profession? The military isn't the unthinking brutes many view them as.
> What I find strange is that a man who would make such a noble gesture as taking care of a wounded enemy, would not simply refuse to take part in such a senseless, destructive war as WWII, in the first place.
Because he lived by a code. He fought bravely for his nation, but he wouldn't cheat — and for him, shooting a wounded plane was a form of cheating.
I don't really think WWII was senseless (although it was certainly destructive). WWI, yes: it was a completely stupid loss of life. But I think for everyone involved the Second World War was vitally important.
Because he lived by a code. He fought bravely for his nation, but he wouldn't cheat — and for him, shooting a wounded plane was a form of cheating.
I don't really think WWII was senseless (although it was certainly destructive). WWI, yes: it was a completely stupid loss of life. But I think for everyone involved the Second World War was vitally important.