> “So where does the air vehicle called the Predator [i.e., a flying robot] fit? It is unmanned, and impressive. In 2002, in Yemen, one run by the CIA came up behind an SUV full of al-Qaeda leaders and successfully fired a Hellfire missile, leaving a large smoking crater where the vehicle used to be.”
> Yes, just as you read it: a number of human beings were turned to smoke and smithereens, and this pathetic journalist, whoever he is, speaking with the mentality of a 10-year-old who blows up his toy soldiers, reports in cold blood how people were turned to ashes by his favorite (“impressive”, yeah) military toys. Of course, for overgrown pre-teens like him, the SUV was not full of human beings, but of “al-Qaeda leaders” (as if he knew their ranks), of terrorists, sub-humans who aren’t worthy of living, who don’t have mothers to be devastated by their loss. Thinking of the enemy as subhuman scum to be obliterated without second thoughts was a typical attitude displayed by Nazis against Jews (and others) in World War II.
That's... quite a string of logic. He seems to know an awful lot about the mental process of that journalist.
As a critique of his general point: good general AI is dangerous (and useful) in so many ways I don't see why he focuses so narrowly on humanoid carriers of weapons of mass destruction - hell we already have those.
You are very right to question the interpretation of the subhuman argument. If someone has not been shot at or genuinely afraid for the life at the hands of another human being, it is very idealistic to say that the conversion of humans to subhumans by combatants is petty. As someone who has been shot at and shot back, the reduction of an unquestionably hostile enemy to subhuman is very normal if not necessary for most members of a military, on both sides of a conflict. People that judge the hatred of religiously motivated enemies are both naive and living in walled gardens.
The fact that the OP can morally object to participating in the research is the perfect definition of ideology inside a protected environment. If he had ever needed a gun, for example, to save his life, he would not question the morality of the creator, until he was once again safe from those that threatened him. I say until because people that question the need for violence have never experienced true hatred of violence. IMEO.
> Yes, just as you read it: a number of human beings were turned to smoke and smithereens, and this pathetic journalist, whoever he is, speaking with the mentality of a 10-year-old who blows up his toy soldiers, reports in cold blood how people were turned to ashes by his favorite (“impressive”, yeah) military toys. Of course, for overgrown pre-teens like him, the SUV was not full of human beings, but of “al-Qaeda leaders” (as if he knew their ranks), of terrorists, sub-humans who aren’t worthy of living, who don’t have mothers to be devastated by their loss. Thinking of the enemy as subhuman scum to be obliterated without second thoughts was a typical attitude displayed by Nazis against Jews (and others) in World War II.
That's... quite a string of logic. He seems to know an awful lot about the mental process of that journalist.
As a critique of his general point: good general AI is dangerous (and useful) in so many ways I don't see why he focuses so narrowly on humanoid carriers of weapons of mass destruction - hell we already have those.