When I heard about Project Nimbus I imagined this was the use case. Cloud computing to catalogue all Palestinians and identify targets. You're automating oppression and ethnic cleansing at this point.
This is sadly why I just decided to not pursue computer vision as a field. It’s such an interesting technology. But this kind of thing is what it will be put towards. They’ll eventually export the technique to their friends, though we have a version of it at the airport already.
not just the airport, pretty sure they have it at the mall now
I've heard it's been used in the UK to ban shoplifters. The false positive rate in that is pretty high (makes sense if you think about it, 99.9% accuracy still means you're going to falsely ban a couple people a day in a busy store), especially if they fall on the wrong side of
It'll happen regardless of whether or not you're in the field. Don't let that stop you.
The risk isn't just "what if my field in general is used for evil and I feel bad about it" it's also "there's a very high likelihood this field is going to put me in a situation where it's losing my livelihood or abandoning my morals and I don't want to have to make that choice"
There's also ghe argument that being part of it can give you the opportunity to speak against it. Regardless, I don't blame anyone for making the decision you described. It's very situational and not at all an easy question to answer.
sure. I just don't see a lot of historical examples of that working, personally. I guess you could organize your coworkers against the evil shit, but well compensated engineers tend to be pretty morally flexible in my experience, and not easy to meaningfully organize towards any goal.
And as a cog in the machine you are replaceable, and your work up until that point will then continue to be used for ends you have no control over even if you stuck to your principles and quit when asked to participate in something reprehensible. IMO it's easier to not get into a field that has a lot more potential for genocide than it does for improving society, than it is to minimize your harm once you're there and basically guarantee you'll be forced to make very hard morally compromising decisions.
There wouldn't be historical examples of that happening because if it works then it's there's no example to draw from. The closest thing I can come up with is figures like MLk or Gandhi who advocated for better progress and standing in their society while working within it. But I can't give examples of when this kind of mindset stopped a bad thing from happening in the first place.
There does come a point where you have to cut your losses however. Reminds me of a quote that I'm having trouble digging up where it talks about how there were plenty of good people who were Nazis who tried to steer the direction of what the Germans were doing. The quote ended with essentially saying it didn't matter what their motivations or intentions were, history just remembers them all as Nazis.
there were plenty of good people who were Nazis who tried to steer the direction of what the Germans were doing
it didn't matter what their motivations or intentions were, history just remembers them all as Nazis
yeah cuz they didn't do anything lol.
History does remember defectors and saboteurs if the news gets out.
More like trying to stop war crimes from happening to begin with. Doesn't always work admittedly but we should try to where we can.
you aren't going to do jack shit, the system changes you you don't change the system. The "reform from the inside" myth is extremely silly and naive unless you are actively doing sabotage and espionage as a fifth column, that's about the only time it's valid.
A lot of societal progress is done from within. Women's suffrage, MLK or Malcolm X with black rights, Gandhi with Indias independence. These things do happen.
Where did you get the idea that Malcolm X or even MLK were “within” the system of white supremacy? No progress was gained in MLK’s day until he was martyred, and then the subsequent unrest and riots forced concessions from the white supremacists in power. It was violent unrest that earned those rights. MLK was extremely outspoken about "white moderates" who tried to do slow reform, and called them worse than the KKK. He didn't agree with you.
They were a part of American society and worked within the law to improve it and advocate for better rights (for the most part, I don't recall if they broke any laws intentionally).
both of them actively broke laws intentionally constantly, what do you think civil disobedience and bus boycotts were? You think they were legal?
It was non-violent civilians disobedience. They weren't fighting, they were protesting. Which can be argued as legal, given the rights afforded in the US constitution.
Non-violent civilian disobedience is a euphemism for breaking the law, what do you think it is they are “disobeying”? The constitution does not protect blocking bridges, stopping public transport, etc.
They were breaking the law, and that’s the only reason they were effective. They didn't try to get elected to congress and change the laws, they took direct action themselves outside the structures of the state to force concessions using their leverage.
And as an aside, the "constitution" is a dogshit rag written by slavers and white supremacists and afforded no rights whatsoever to the enslaved chattel. Every one of those "rights afforded by the constitution" was a right explicitly forbidden by the constitution until they were forced at gunpoint to concede. The rights we have earned are in spite of the constitution, not because of it.
It is technically breaking the law but doing so in an effective manner. You're right in that sense. At the end of the day protesting is to yell and scream to make your voice heard and sometimes, not always, you have to make disruptions to have your voice heard. It's very situational and not an easy question to answer.
They got some improvements. They didn't fundamentally change or fix anything. And that still required a massive movement. It also involved global political pressure caused by the US attempting to "compete" with the USSR morally (the US needed to improve its image during the Cold War so they could keep doing what they were doing). But I don't think you can easily compare the civil rights movement with someone hired for a job to "change [their job] from the inside". Usually if you don't do your job, you get fired (or fined, or imprisoned, or worse). And then you're not on the inside.
