My points stand.

You chose to work for death. Take responsibility for your choices, you liar.

@lana @pbloem

1/ I did NOT say that the technology has only one use. I took great care to avoid even implying that, by writing "A chasing device is most useful to people with hostile intent."

2/ nor did I say there are "are no non-violent uses".

You now acknowledge that you are in fact anvex-emplpyee of an organisation of trained killers, viz a navy.

Your lies therefore have a strategic purpose of sanitising technologies of death.

#Bye, liar

@lana @pbloem

But the problem that you are pointing at is also true. And to cast all the blame on the developers is to remove all blame from a society that encourages it.

Society is as much to blame for development and use as they are. Both the left and right do it.

Want more Healthcare? Fund it, vote for people who do. Want less war stuff? Fund less, vote for people who don't shave but cut.

Get it? Got it? Good.

I think most technologies have multiple affordances and it's always telling which uses are being 'sold' and which are being unmentioned.

These days I pretty automatically ask of any technology what its military and surveillance functions are. (That sun reflection-dish sattelite technology, for example, is absolutely not about 'search and rescue' or 'agriculture').

1/ 2 You are dealing with the technology as if there are no non-violent uses.

I can give you one right now. Search and rescue, which does fall under military tech, and is dual use. Combine with drone extraction in a war zone, as Ukraine did recently, you have a humane use.

Saying that the tech has only one use is wrong.

Will it be used for other things? Most likely. But in my younger days with that narrative as the focus, given my Navy Corpsman background...

"Dual use" is a phrase researchers use when thinking about ethics and security in technology. For example, an AI system for designing novel drugs may sound great, but it might also be used to develop neurotoxin, so that could be a dual use technology. Serious dual use technology can have, for example, export restrictions.

Anyway, AI researchers have a habit of posting "cool demos" while showing an absolute blind spot for worrying dual use. For example, automated lip reading. They then get criticised on social media.

I called this drone demo "single use" because they're not even pretending anymore that there is any beneficial application. This is very clearly designed for hunting people.

I didn't mean to imply that the drones themselves are necessarily single use, although that is actually a very likely (and very worrying) way of using this kind of technology to kill. The short film "Slaughterbots" showed this pretty vividly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterbots

A chasing device is most useful to people with hostile intent.

Just as a device for delivering bombs to remote targets is most useful to people with hostile intent.

And a device for propelling a small metal projectile at high speed with high accuracy is most useful to people with hostile intent.

@lana @pbloem

That's not the point.

The point is who gets funding.

@lana @pbloem

I read that some licenses are like this in this thread, and seem to recall it, but I also seem to recall it has never been tested.

Then come the legal beagles who shave down definitions, etc.

So dystopian.

That's not what people vote for. They vote for safety, usually at the expense of everyone's.

Richard Feynman, "The Meaning Of It All: Thoughts of a citizen scientist" is a book i highly recommend. He had to deal with involvement in making The Bomb.

It's clear that there's something that gets the drone to follow and keep him in frame, and he seems to do an awful lot of the filming himself.

Maybe the drone shots are controlled by another person, but it sure looks like it follows him some other way.