Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS.
-
@knowprose @pbloem What a take. They track a target (their words) through the woods and you think they only thought of cool applications (like...?) and the idea of state sponsored murder is just something that happens independently. It's very obviously the only application they thought about, why would you pretend it's not?
@lana @pbloem I did not pretend anything, but I suspect you are talking about them. Why would THEY do it?
Simple. Three possibilities.
(1) Target blindness. It *is* an interesting problem to solve. So without a thought, maybe they did.
(2) they are actually trying to do what we see can be done, possibly to save lives on whatever side they claim to be.
(3) that's exactly the problem they are trying to solve.
I've seen all 3.
-
@FediThing @lana @pbloem so, there's your answer.
You may not like the answer.
And if you trace it down, understanding if you throw funding at something you give it a positive bias...
Everyone sees what the government spends a ridiculous amount on. I wonder what would happen if funding were for something else...
-
Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS. Developed, with military funds, at a public university.
This is not dual use anymore, this is single use. There is only one use here.
Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a negative Nancy with all my ethics talk, and then I see colleagues proudly post this kind of thing without a single acknowledgment of the implications.
@pbloem@mathstodon.xyz I hope they get murdered by their own creations
-
Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS. Developed, with military funds, at a public university.
This is not dual use anymore, this is single use. There is only one use here.
Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a negative Nancy with all my ethics talk, and then I see colleagues proudly post this kind of thing without a single acknowledgment of the implications.
@pbloem meanwhile the drool is flowing on linkedin. the corpbrained dunces can't see the wood for the trees... pardon the pun.
not a single negative, huh? just the usual linkedin circle-jerk.
-
@pbloem >This work involves many open-source software tools,
and I believe we should imply a new free software license clause: no military, no surveillance. because free software cannot trace and murder people..as a programmer I never worked for anything like that and I don't want any line of code I ever wrote was ever used for such dishonorary purposes. -
@knowprose @pbloem What a take. They track a target (their words) through the woods and you think they only thought of cool applications (like...?) and the idea of state sponsored murder is just something that happens independently. It's very obviously the only application they thought about, why would you pretend it's not?
@lana @knowprose @pbloem my thought exactly. I have worked in labs like this. They know what they are doing, though they probably state it as "this will save the lives of American soldiers" and conveniently elide the part where it's murdering other people to do so and also assuming the American military and/or whoever else gets their hands on it will use it for "good".
But yeah they are not naive, they know they are developing a weapons system.
-
@lana @knowprose @pbloem my thought exactly. I have worked in labs like this. They know what they are doing, though they probably state it as "this will save the lives of American soldiers" and conveniently elide the part where it's murdering other people to do so and also assuming the American military and/or whoever else gets their hands on it will use it for "good".
But yeah they are not naive, they know they are developing a weapons system.
-
@pbloem yeah. I don't want to type it all again, so...
@knowprose @pbloem Exactly. We don’t HAVE to create every technology that we can. We can choose which directions to innovate in. Indeed we do! And this… yikes.
-
Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS. Developed, with military funds, at a public university.
This is not dual use anymore, this is single use. There is only one use here.
Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a negative Nancy with all my ethics talk, and then I see colleagues proudly post this kind of thing without a single acknowledgment of the implications.
@pbloem despicable
-
Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS. Developed, with military funds, at a public university.
This is not dual use anymore, this is single use. There is only one use here.
Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a negative Nancy with all my ethics talk, and then I see colleagues proudly post this kind of thing without a single acknowledgment of the implications.
@pbloem 🤮🤮🤮 -
@knowprose @pbloem Exactly. We don’t HAVE to create every technology that we can. We can choose which directions to innovate in. Indeed we do! And this… yikes.
-
@b_cavello @pbloem yeah. I write about it myself.
-
Social impact statement: This technology allows population-level massacre at a cost of a hundred dollars per person. Produced at scale it could cause more suffering and death per dollar than nuclear weapons.
However, there are also positive uses: it could be used to help runners improve their form.
@pbloem I swear to fuck, the Terminator movies need to be *part of the curriculum* for technology education, as a negative example...
-
Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS. Developed, with military funds, at a public university.
This is not dual use anymore, this is single use. There is only one use here.
Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a negative Nancy with all my ethics talk, and then I see colleagues proudly post this kind of thing without a single acknowledgment of the implications.
@pbloem@mathstodon.xyz “armed” “target locked”
-
Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS. Developed, with military funds, at a public university.
This is not dual use anymore, this is single use. There is only one use here.
Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a negative Nancy with all my ethics talk, and then I see colleagues proudly post this kind of thing without a single acknowledgment of the implications.
-
Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS. Developed, with military funds, at a public university.
This is not dual use anymore, this is single use. There is only one use here.
Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a negative Nancy with all my ethics talk, and then I see colleagues proudly post this kind of thing without a single acknowledgment of the implications.
@pbloem this is why tech studies should not neglect teaching the humanities!
-
Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS. Developed, with military funds, at a public university.
This is not dual use anymore, this is single use. There is only one use here.
Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a negative Nancy with all my ethics talk, and then I see colleagues proudly post this kind of thing without a single acknowledgment of the implications.
@pbloem I'm not understanding what the "single use" is. I have a DJI Neo 2 drone that can do this and its primary purpose is to shoot video. I don't find that something to be worried about so I suspect I'm missing something in your post
-
@pbloem I'm not understanding what the "single use" is. I have a DJI Neo 2 drone that can do this and its primary purpose is to shoot video. I don't find that something to be worried about so I suspect I'm missing something in your post
@mlanger Killing people who are running away from the drone.
If you want to film people you don't need to worry so much about autonomy, or chasing a target that is actively running away, or about doing it without GPS. All the design parameters here scream war.
To be fair: I was slightly hyperbolic. You _could_ use this to film somebody doing a trail run. But in this case, that's not the obvious application.
-
@pbloem this is why tech studies should not neglect teaching the humanities!
@qevlarr I agree with the general idea. But just adding some arbitrary ethics course to the curriculum is not enough at this point. I think we need to discuss concrete social impact inside of the technical courses, right next to every technology.
The normal humanities curriculum can be a bit vague and non-commital for the average techie. In my lectures I've tried to always give very direct, concrete examples of exactly how technological developments have killed or hurt people (I'm not always the most fun lecturer).
-
Social impact statement: This technology allows population-level massacre at a cost of a hundred dollars per person. Produced at scale it could cause more suffering and death per dollar than nuclear weapons.
However, there are also positive uses: it could be used to help runners improve their form.
@pbloem Importantly: it allows this massacre to happen with the killers out of reach of the target...
