Autonomous drones following running people through the woods, without GPS.
-
@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. -
@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.
@knowprose Creating a machine for chasing people makes it almost certain that the designer's goals are malicious. There are very few positive roles for a chasing machine, but countless hostile roles.
-
@knowprose Creating a machine for chasing people makes it almost certain that the designer's goals are malicious. There are very few positive roles for a chasing machine, but countless hostile roles.
-
No, @knowprose. I am NOT being creative. This is about the nature of the technology.
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.
-
@mlanger Ah! I understand the confusion now. Sorry, I misunderstood you before. (Thanks @bluetea.)
"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
-
No, @knowprose. I am NOT being creative. This is about the nature of the technology.
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.
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...
-
@mlanger Ah! I understand the confusion now. Sorry, I misunderstood you before. (Thanks @bluetea.)
"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
@pbloem @mlanger oh I see! Thank you for that explanation, that makes sense. Another example of a discipline using language in a very specific way.
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...
@2legged @lana @pbloem 2/2 I likely would have jumped at a project like that.
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.
-
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 remember when they introduced a "follow me" luggage trolley in saas fee. a cute yellow round corner thing that was able to follow people around the village and dutifully returned to the bus station after the customer sent it back. A collegue of mine worked for the tourist bureau and was veeery proud of that thing.
It was really hard to get rid of that thing on purpose. He was so happy about it until I said: it's all fun and games until it has an automatic gun.
he instantly went pale. I know he's just a tourism guy but how can you NOT think of this as a training object for "strategical use". What could possibly go wrong, right? -
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...
You are a shameless liar, @knowprose.
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
-
@2legged @lana @pbloem 2/2 I likely would have jumped at a project like that.
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.
Uhuh. @knowprose. You chose work on technologies which are primarily useful for death. Just as you previously choose to work for organisation dedicated to death, viz a navy,
You chose to work for death. Take responsibility for your choices, you liar.
-
@2legged @lana @pbloem 2/2 I likely would have jumped at a project like that.
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.
@2legged@mastodon.ie @lana @pbloem for the record, I was about to respond to whats-his-name, but we seem to have suffered mutual blockage.
My points stand.
-
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 just stopped at "Em*bodied*" AI. I think embedded would be a nicer word. OMG!
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
