= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rain comments on Open Thread: March 2010, part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (334)
Am I the only one to think that no, creating military robots isn't a "good career path" towards friendly AI, because creating military robots is inherently unfriendly to humanity? Especially if you live in the US and know that your robots will be used in aggressive wars against poorer countries. It's some kind of crazy ethical blindness that most Americans seem to have for some reason, where "our guys" are human beings, but arbitrarily chosen foreigners deserve whatever they get... Just like this incident I saw on HN when one guy asked about career prospects working for the occupation force in Iraq, and another answered that it'll be an "amazing and unique experience". You'll note my reply there was much more concise.
How much harm do you contribute by working to enable military robots?
How much harm do you contribute by paying taxes to the US government, part of which are used to fund military robots?
How much harm do you contribute by existing, living in the US, and absorbing a huge amount of electricity and other natural resources?
Well, that was voted down pretty rapidly :)
However, I was being honest with my questions. I'd like to know what sort of utilon adjustments people assign to these different situations, even if it's just a general weighting like 'high' or 'low'.
My decision to not work for the military industrial complex is all about fuzzies, not utilons.
It can be useful to separate 'fuzzies' from 'practical benefit' but they can both be considered sources of utilons.
As I see it, it's less about how much harm those specific things do, and more about how viable the alternatives are. I expect that all governments makes tax avoidance/evasion difficult, and I suspect that paying taxes to any government will support a military. The lifestyle changes involved in actually living sustainably (as opposed to being 'slightly better than the US average' or applying greenwash) seem pretty significant and possibly unattainable for most of us, as well. (I could be wrong on the latter in a general sense; I haven't looked into it, since I'm already relatively sure that it's beyond what I, personally, could manage.) Given that Warrigal was asking about the career move, though, I expect that he does have other viable options that could be pursued without completely turning his life upside down, and that's a significant difference between this decision and the other two.
Costa Rica's constitution forbids a military, and they seem to mean it, though one can quibble about whether their police count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica
How viable, given that you want to live in relative comfort and ease. But if a true valuation is made, then perhaps that should not be taken as given, considering the costs.
I have not assigned numbers - it is not a simple question.