You didn't address the main point of my comment, so I'll ask again more directly: are you suggesting that the government create regulation that compels companies, (and thus individuals) to do work on military technology that it deems relevant to national interests?
What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"?
I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected.
The connection is the hubris that enables Google to benefit from public largesse while simultaneously believing itself to be superior to it (and by extension, the public). Like it or not, Google has benefited immensely from research facilitated/instigated by DARPA, DoD etc. which were all military technologies (GPS, internet, Grand Challenge). But now, it has serious qualms about AI that enables civilian areas to be identified in conflict zones (by its own admission).
I'm still confused as to how "we don't want to work on systems that kill people" is in any way "superiority".
In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population.
You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public.
That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves.
In my comments, I repeatedly say that individuals should not be compelled to work on military technology, except in times of war. Hardly confusing.
> In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population.
I do not know how one could read that into my comments. At this point, I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse. Google doesn't just use this technology like you or me, it benefits, i.e., enriches itself immensely to the tune of billions of dollars every quarter! It also becomes much more powerful and further embeds itself into the lives of ordinary people in this process.
> You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public.
I do not think that description applies to much of the public, which lives outside the SV bubble. But I will concede that this is something that's debatable.
> That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves.
Here, again, you are twisting my words and ascribing meaning that simply doesn't follow from what I have said.
I am definitely saying that Google the corporation and leadership in Silicon Valley suffers from the hubris that they can simultaneously benefit (i.e., make billions of dollars) off the fruits of research that's quite explicitly geared toward military technology, and they can rebuff those very same benefactors without consequences (and while holding the moral high ground). These benefactors are Government agencies, that exist to carry out the will of the people (nominally, at least).
Except that much of what you're saying implies that you do think these companies should be regulated in a way that forces them to do this. Or at least, if that's not what you're saying, then you seem to be insinuating a whole lot for no apparent purpose. This is why I'm confused. Your stated words and actions (ie the rest of your words) don't appear to match up.
>Google doesn't just use this technology like you or me, it benefits,
Are you suggesting that you and I don't benefit immensely from the internet?
If I'm understand you correctly, you're saying that it is unethical for an entity to benefit from another entity without supporting it. That is to say, its unethical for Google to benefit from the military's technology without also supporting the military.
Ignoring, for a moment that there's a whole host of debate on whether or not that's even true to begin with, such an objection applies equally to any individual as well as Google. I, personally, benefit greatly from military technology. Is it unethical for me to refuse to work on drone warfare? It seems odd for you to say yes to that, but on the other hand, that's basically what you're saying about Google.
>I do not think that description applies to much of the public, which lives outside the SV bubble. But I will concede that this is something that's debatable.
I would consider more than a third of the US population to be "much of" [1].
> suffers from the hubris that they can simultaneously benefit (i.e., make billions of dollars) off the fruits of research that's quite explicitly geared toward military technology, and they can rebuff those very same benefactors without consequences
But again, except perhaps in terms of scale, this applies to anyone. You and I both benefit, significantly, from military technology, both in terms of safety and quality of life. Yet you've stated that we should not be compelled to give back.
Why should Google (or any other corporation, which again, is really just a set of individuals) be treated differently?
Here we have a difference of opinion. I strongly believe corporations are less accountable to the general public than individuals or (democratic) Government, including the Military. I simply do not believe in corporate personhood.
I do think there is a large distinction between individuals and corporations, and corporations, on the whole behave much more unethically and can wreak much more havoc than individuals. The large ones also seem to have an uncanny ability to perpetuate their existence (in various guises and incarnations) and generate some really nasty externalities.
I do think that the level of freedom and lack of accountability (vis-a-vis individuals and governments) corporations enjoy in the United States has reached insane levels. One the other hand, I do prefer it to the situation in China, where any corporation is likely to become a tool of the State. I believe corporations can and should contribute back to the Military if they have benefited financially from military technology. Perhaps not as much as would have been the case in a Socialist/Communist country, but definitely at some level higher than the present.
> I believe corporations can and should contribute back to the Military if they have benefited financially from military technology.
Do you also believe corporations should contribute to Experimental Particle Physics at CERN if they have benefited financially from the world wide web?
I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that.
Further, in your post that started this subthread, you stated
>It's high time these companies are regulated and their malfeasance reined in by the United States.
That, at least to me, reads as though you think that the US should regulate these companies in ways that require them to give back to the military. Which again, which employees should do that? How can you compel a company without, at some level, compelling the individuals within the company? Which you've at least claimed you don't want to do?
> I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that.
It does. A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing. There is no direct conflict with individuals' rights. So sure, Google the corporation can be compelled to do this without affecting individuals. It's quite common in other industries, but of course, for SV, it's all about the hubris, optics and innate sense of superiority.
In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology?
>A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing.
So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones?
> In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology?
The canonical example is the early days of aerospace, where for all practical purposes you were developing military technology.
> So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones?
The government can already compel you to license your work via eminent domain. There's an established process for this.
At any point of time there are always a slew of 'sensitive technologies' whose use and development will be closely monitored and companies are incentivized, severely restricted, or outright barred from freely trafficking in them. It's not a giant leap of the imagination that they will be forced to do the federal govt's bidding if they already do a large amount of business with them or have started out with military IP.
'Internet-related technologies' is not one of them. There was a time when supercomputers were in this category, then it was cryptography, and now it's looking like AI.
BTW, Cisco and a few others have been forced to develop 'lawful intercept' technologies on their routers for the three-letter agencies for years, I think. There was a big controversy about this a few years ago.
> BTW, Cisco and a few others have been forced to develop 'lawful intercept' technologies on their routers for the three-letter agencies for years, I think. There was a big controversy about this a few years ago.
And you seem to be arguing that this is a good thing? Surely any company (filled with people) should be free to work on whatever technologies that those people feel is ethically right.
> And you seem to be arguing that this is a good thing? Surely any company (filled with people) should be free to work on whatever technologies that those people feel is ethically right.
I'm arguing that it's not a cut-and-dry thing. Clearly it's susceptible to abuse, but on the other hand it is vital to the long-term security interests of the United States. In any case, there is more accountability than Google or Cisco 'self-regulating' themselves. These companies can't massively leverage military research and then turn back and say they have no obligation whatsoever. They can choose to do no business with the federal government, but that's clearly not the case. In fact, the opposite is true.
If not, what exactly are you suggesting?