I honestly would have to read up more on the arguments for the restrictions that are currently in place.
A problem with this whole discussion is that no one has the same definition of "hate speech"; it is too subjective of a term. We all (the majority) agree when it is wrong to declare imminent danger.
But like I said, I need to read up more on the rationale for those restrictions.
It also doesn't have a sticky footer, which appears after I close the "sign up for our newsletter" popup, asking if I would like to sign up for their newsletter.
> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people...
Did that person's comment say that they support those things? Weird, I didn't read that...
When it comes down to the fundamental rights of an individual you can't pick and choose when something is an unalienable right and when it is not. We can either have free speech (warts and all) or we can live in a world that dictates what a person can and cannot say (a world I want nothing to do with).
Back to the previous point, I support someone's right to say something, not what they say. I think white supremacists are morons who sadly misunderstand there position in the world. I support their right to SAY what they want, but I don't support the contents of their speech.
The discussion around free speech requires nuance; none of it is even remotely close to as black and white as you paint it.
> if everything is so clear-cut and right and wrong are easy to tell appart
I would never in my life assert that these issues, ethically, are simple.
I think that Google trying to hide this information is more connected to their image and culture more so than anything else.
From an outsider looking in, it seems that Google has this hyper progressive culture that thousands of people live and work in. So the company helping the US military get better at killing people with flying robots clashes with the ideals expressed by the company and are a part of its culture.
Is your question relating to my comments on 'sides'? Your original comment is what brought up sides. When you think about this issues, what do you mean by sides?
You just say "the side your on is pretty important". You use WWII to try to bolster this claim, but that doesn't mean anything to me in the context. I trying to understand what you mean in your comment.
> I fear that the limit of precision strike weapons is being able to swiftly kill an arbitrary target anywhere, for cheap - which opens the way for ethnic cleansing, killing off political opponents, people harboring thoughts inconvenient to powerful people, etc.
This a very good point. I agree with you. To prevent this requires people to be involved in our democracy. As a group, we need to elect people into office that have the proper moral and ethic values that empowers them to hold the military accountable for how they use these weapons. If this is the case, I believe that is would be EXTREMELY hard for the military to misuse these weapons.
So, generally and from what I understand about US drone operations, these strikes target people like ISIS and other Islamic extremists. Following this, in a general sense, the sides are the US and terrorist religious extremists.
The way you frame your point makes it sound like your on one side or the other. If that is the case, I would much rather be on the side of the US than the extremest who murder people for arbitrary reasons.
If that is not the way you meant for it to be framed, please correct me.
> This is even more true in the case of drone operations and so-called "AI" assisted actions, where operators sitting safely in air-conditioned facilities in the California desert can decide to remotely kill people with no risk to themselves.
Why does the risk to the warfighter matter? Would you rather they send infantry to go and assault the target? Why wouldn't you want to minimize the risk to the soldiers in the field by using tech to hit a target rather than men on the ground?
There is a lot of problems with this strategy when introduced into the real world; the chaotic vortex that it is.
The data can be wrong. This could be easily fixed if law enforcement agencies had to actually verify that the data was correct, but in practice this seems to rarely occur.
When people are told by a group that they are a thing, repeatedly, they eventually accept that they are that thing. If the cops keep harassing you for being a gangbanger when you have never been one your whole, you just happen to be associated with a few individuals who are, you eventually just move towards that group. Why not? The powers that be already think you are one and they treat you like one, which causes other people to treat you like one, so why not just be one?
You also need to consider the idea of enforcing crime that hasn't happened yet. That defeats the whole point of law enforcement. It is meant as a reactionary force, not an offensive force. Policing someone who has the potential for crime assumes that they will do it again, which makes it so your essentially treating them as guilty for something they haven't done yet. From my perspective, that seems to defeat the purpose of our legal system.
Since we live in a market driven economy, the government (A) will always find a way to buy what they want. So if Google (B) doesn't supply the demand, the customer will just go somewhere else. So it is completely illogical for Goolge to move away. They are an extremely powerful business and are subject to the rules of business.
Thank god, some sense! It was driving me crazy with how many irrational positions that people in this thread are holding without considering their orientation to the product (AI) and their relationship to the employer.
Something I would add is that a lot of people don't understand how fundamental military R&D is to the collective progression of knowledge and technology. Take almost any common technology that we use today (computers, gps, rockets, airplanes, cell phones, radios, the internet, etc) and you will find it came from military R&D and use in war.
Since AI and all its related parts are the new technological hotness, to put it mildly, it only makes sense that Google, one of the companies on the forefront of this technology, would work with the government/military to do research and find ways to apply it with their scope.
Is the site broken for anyone else? I see {{ STATE }} when I get into the page and a bunch of template variables in the page. None of the controls work and I have disabled my adblock, https everywhere, etc.
Something that I don't get about this article is why she keeps implying that a merit based system is so bad. It behoves a company to hire and fire based on merit, while also rewarding and encouraging those who are skilled at their job. That is how you create a top notch product.
For the highly customizable text editor like emacs (the better one) or vim, start with a the editor from scratch and build it out. Look for the 'popular' configurations in the editor's community and glean cool snippets from it. That is what I did with emacs and once you get in that discovery and tinker state of mind, you will always learn something new that just blows your mind and makes your life easier.
The TL;DR: dive head first into some editor and try to immerse yourself in the thinking of the editor.
A problem with this whole discussion is that no one has the same definition of "hate speech"; it is too subjective of a term. We all (the majority) agree when it is wrong to declare imminent danger.
But like I said, I need to read up more on the rationale for those restrictions.