One of the ways the U.S. is distinguished in history is that defense is the common responsibility of all citizens. This flows from the decision to establish it as a republic.
This was the basis for the draft, which was not restricted to a specific warrior class; any man of eligible age had to fight if called up and medically cleared.
Today, anyone can volunteer for military service and (again, if medically cleared) they will get trained up and added to the military.
If members of the military see themselves as somehow special within society, it is because of the choices, commitments, and service they have each made as individuals. Not because they are part of some separate class of violence.
There are also a lot of American soldiers who figure it's a job, with decent pay and benefits. I know a few Navy SEALs who actually fit this description.
contrary to a sibling comment, your last few sentences are 100% right.
military service-men are special because of their sacrifices they all make, whether it be health, freedom, separation, adversity, injury (mental or physical), or ultimately even death. they do this out of respect and service and to protect their families, loved ones and communities.
every society does, in fact, need those who sacrifice for the good of others.
very, very, few military people get off on killing - these are also called psychopaths. the rest of the servicemen that have been put in that position to kill, even in war, will always carry scars.
clearly Palmer does not speak from experience - he's a naive autistic, imagining that simply being part of Anduril makes him a party to the "violence" while in reality he's a healthy billion dollars away from it - of course he can sleep at night!
And who accept the physical risk of doing so, in order for people like Palmer can profit handsomely from it, without having to take on any of that risk themselves.
A classless society that never aspired to have or need a warrior class, to a society that inexplicably needs a "warrior class" that presumably answers to the moneyed capital class alone.
US police are such a warrior class who have qualified immunity allowing them to kill people at random with little or no accountability. Blowing up people's houses and making people like Anthony Silva hospital-bound quadriplegic for a year before dying.
It reminds me of Col Jessup from a Few Good Men “You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.”
Him being an edge-lord tool or an honest psychopath are completely indistinguishable in text form, and actually only one party, the edgelord, has any motive to lie.
First, let me be clear: I don’t take hardline positions on this issue. As much as I, or anyone, might dislike the idea of advanced AI in warfare, I know it’s been in use for decades in various forms, and its continued development is inevitable.
I shouldn’t have to preface my comment with this, but too many people try to pigeonhole others into extreme camps. So, for the record: I am not a moderate, nor am I trying to balance my opinion to appease anyone, nor am I compromising my ethics because I do not choose one idiotic camp over the other.
I despise how this issue has been framed. This isn’t some false dichotomy where we either give obnoxious billionaires a free pass to build whatever they want in the name of “necessary evil,” or throw up our hands with vague hardline positions like “a robot should never decide who lives or dies.”
Also, I want to call out Luckey's nonsense argument where he compares the ethics of AI to the ethics of land mines. Just to be clear, 164 countries have made their ethics on land mines clear when they signed the Ottawa Convention. Even the US, who isn't on that list, goes out of its way not to use land mines since 1991, though I understand there were some rare exceptions made in Afghanistan.
The reality is, we’re moving into an era where AI is going to radically widen the asymmetry of power between those who control precision weapons and everyone else.
And let me be even clearer: as we move deeper into this era, our failure to assert our ethical standards—and our tolerance of those who openly dismiss them—will only make it a little easier for the lesser states, warlords, insurgents, terrorists, and criminal organizations who will eventually get their hands on it and use it to terrorize people who challenge their power.
This is not a problem that’s going away and having unimpeachable and uncompromising ethics isn't going to magically solve the problem. It’s an intractably complex, accelerating trend. But anyone who suggests ethics have no place in the development of these weapons should be censured by a civically intelligent society. We need to struggle, debate and deliberate the ethics of AI in warfare, not ignore the issue.
This issue isn't about picking a camp and making their shitty ethics your shitty ethics. This issue requires all of us to think for ourselves and to try to do the right thing.
I think this guy is getting a bit overboard and trying to monetize the moment. He should recall the Cold War - one country can't advance without other major powers catching up quickly. The only way to avoid conflict is diplomacy and America has been bad at it recently! The Democrats pushed both Russia and China into war mode, making them partners.
Absolutely not! Violence only leads to more violence - if not immediately, then shortly after. Even the Ukraine war started with violence back in 2014. And exactly looking back into history and not just hypothesiszing that "Eye for an eye" never worked! Russia was pushed into war by Obama and Biden (when he was Obama's vice president). So, let's see how Georgia dreams to join NATO will end up! Ukraine #2? Well, Georgia is no Ukraine - at least not from a military point of view, which only matters.
Even the Ukraine war started with violence back in 2014.
Right - violent invasions of Ukrainian territory by Russia.
Russia was pushed into war by Obama and Biden
This just is a repeat of what you said earlier. But in short -- in no way was Russia's regime "pushed" into doing what it did in 2014. The move was entirely optional for Putin. He did what he did because he thought he could obtain a certain advantage on the playing field, and because he thought he could get away with it.
You’re right “pushed” is the wrong word. “Provoked” (repeatedly, incessantly) would be a more appropriate way to describe the coup and subsequent actions.
So because there was a revolution in Ukraine because the then president refused to do the people's will in regards to the EU, Russia is justified in invading a sovereign nation, Ukraine, taking its territory, kidnapping its children and raping, torturing and killing its citizens.
Russia has no right whatsoever to invade Ukraine. It doesn't matter that there was a "coup" in Ukraine.
If there's a coup in Mexico, the US isn't justified in annexing Mexico. That's just absurd.
Please, leave this place and never come back. You don't belong in civilized society.
This is no revolution. This was a coup funded by the US and the oligarchs. I hope you enjoy the result of this "revolution"! Over a million dead, hundreds of cities and villages turned into ruins, fertile soil poison and turned into Swiss cheese, plus, Russia is winning, and nobody is interested in supporting Ukraine anymore. Happy? It was well-worth it, right? Oh, and millions of Ukrainians fled the country and not coming back!
This was a coup funded by the US and the oligarchs.
I guess that's what you thought you saw. But since you've made a point of fabricating other plainly untenable information (e.g. "Over a million dead") and attempting to present it as fact -- it's a foregone conclusion that your narrative of the events of 2014 will be equally Swiss-cheesed with falsehoods and fabrications as well.
One of the ways the U.S. is distinguished in history is that defense is the common responsibility of all citizens. This flows from the decision to establish it as a republic.
This was the basis for the draft, which was not restricted to a specific warrior class; any man of eligible age had to fight if called up and medically cleared.
Today, anyone can volunteer for military service and (again, if medically cleared) they will get trained up and added to the military.
If members of the military see themselves as somehow special within society, it is because of the choices, commitments, and service they have each made as individuals. Not because they are part of some separate class of violence.
So ... much like yeoman landowners in 14th Century England then?
If you're a citizen with land to till and raise food then you have a responsibility for defence that can be drawn upon by the state.
( ie. the yeoman longbow archers during the Hundred Years' War )
This is something that distinguishes the US in history?
Neither citizenship nor military service is limited to land owners in the U.S.
Nor is it in the modern UK, nor was it in the pre four lions Scotland, Wales, England, or Northern or other Ireland.
I'm still not seeing the American Exceptionalism here.
I think your last two sentences are at odds.
There are many American soldiers who see their service as a silent personal humble sacrifice. I know a handful.
There are also others that view their service as a right to violence and only seek that. I know of one
Its a venn diagram bit I think the overlap is small.
There are also a lot of American soldiers who figure it's a job, with decent pay and benefits. I know a few Navy SEALs who actually fit this description.
contrary to a sibling comment, your last few sentences are 100% right.
military service-men are special because of their sacrifices they all make, whether it be health, freedom, separation, adversity, injury (mental or physical), or ultimately even death. they do this out of respect and service and to protect their families, loved ones and communities.
every society does, in fact, need those who sacrifice for the good of others.
very, very, few military people get off on killing - these are also called psychopaths. the rest of the servicemen that have been put in that position to kill, even in war, will always carry scars.
clearly Palmer does not speak from experience - he's a naive autistic, imagining that simply being part of Anduril makes him a party to the "violence" while in reality he's a healthy billion dollars away from it - of course he can sleep at night!
And who accept the physical risk of doing so, in order for people like Palmer can profit handsomely from it, without having to take on any of that risk themselves.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostly_Other_People_Do_the_Kil...
A classless society that never aspired to have or need a warrior class, to a society that inexplicably needs a "warrior class" that presumably answers to the moneyed capital class alone.
US police are such a warrior class who have qualified immunity allowing them to kill people at random with little or no accountability. Blowing up people's houses and making people like Anthony Silva hospital-bound quadriplegic for a year before dying.
“You need people like me who are sick in that way and who don’t lose any sleep making tools of violence in order to preserve freedom.”
Yeah, repeat that when you’re on the frontline there, buddy. What a tool.
It reminds me of Col Jessup from a Few Good Men “You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.”
A pretty important difference is that Palmer Luckey has never and will never be "on that wall."
Him being an edge-lord tool or an honest psychopath are completely indistinguishable in text form, and actually only one party, the edgelord, has any motive to lie.
We don’t need a warrior class.
We do need to stop stigmatizing people for trying to defend their loved ones or defend their country.
So long as wars are waged with violence, he's probably right. At least, you do need a set of people who are up to the job when it needs doing.
Water is wet and this techbro profiteers from war, so obviously he's pro war and violence.
First, let me be clear: I don’t take hardline positions on this issue. As much as I, or anyone, might dislike the idea of advanced AI in warfare, I know it’s been in use for decades in various forms, and its continued development is inevitable.
I shouldn’t have to preface my comment with this, but too many people try to pigeonhole others into extreme camps. So, for the record: I am not a moderate, nor am I trying to balance my opinion to appease anyone, nor am I compromising my ethics because I do not choose one idiotic camp over the other.
I despise how this issue has been framed. This isn’t some false dichotomy where we either give obnoxious billionaires a free pass to build whatever they want in the name of “necessary evil,” or throw up our hands with vague hardline positions like “a robot should never decide who lives or dies.”
Also, I want to call out Luckey's nonsense argument where he compares the ethics of AI to the ethics of land mines. Just to be clear, 164 countries have made their ethics on land mines clear when they signed the Ottawa Convention. Even the US, who isn't on that list, goes out of its way not to use land mines since 1991, though I understand there were some rare exceptions made in Afghanistan.
The reality is, we’re moving into an era where AI is going to radically widen the asymmetry of power between those who control precision weapons and everyone else.
And let me be even clearer: as we move deeper into this era, our failure to assert our ethical standards—and our tolerance of those who openly dismiss them—will only make it a little easier for the lesser states, warlords, insurgents, terrorists, and criminal organizations who will eventually get their hands on it and use it to terrorize people who challenge their power.
This is not a problem that’s going away and having unimpeachable and uncompromising ethics isn't going to magically solve the problem. It’s an intractably complex, accelerating trend. But anyone who suggests ethics have no place in the development of these weapons should be censured by a civically intelligent society. We need to struggle, debate and deliberate the ethics of AI in warfare, not ignore the issue.
This issue isn't about picking a camp and making their shitty ethics your shitty ethics. This issue requires all of us to think for ourselves and to try to do the right thing.
I've never heard of more obvious statement been so blatantly disagreed with by people who should genuinely know better.
[dead]
I think this guy is getting a bit overboard and trying to monetize the moment. He should recall the Cold War - one country can't advance without other major powers catching up quickly. The only way to avoid conflict is diplomacy and America has been bad at it recently! The Democrats pushed both Russia and China into war mode, making them partners.
Russia's regime pushed itself into war mode.
As for China - no one can push China into anything.
The only way to avoid conflict is diplomacy
This is unfortunately false. As indicated by all of known human history.
Absolutely not! Violence only leads to more violence - if not immediately, then shortly after. Even the Ukraine war started with violence back in 2014. And exactly looking back into history and not just hypothesiszing that "Eye for an eye" never worked! Russia was pushed into war by Obama and Biden (when he was Obama's vice president). So, let's see how Georgia dreams to join NATO will end up! Ukraine #2? Well, Georgia is no Ukraine - at least not from a military point of view, which only matters.
Even the Ukraine war started with violence back in 2014.
Right - violent invasions of Ukrainian territory by Russia.
Russia was pushed into war by Obama and Biden
This just is a repeat of what you said earlier. But in short -- in no way was Russia's regime "pushed" into doing what it did in 2014. The move was entirely optional for Putin. He did what he did because he thought he could obtain a certain advantage on the playing field, and because he thought he could get away with it.
You’re right “pushed” is the wrong word. “Provoked” (repeatedly, incessantly) would be a more appropriate way to describe the coup and subsequent actions.
Except there was no coup, nor any subsequent actions which provoked such a response.
There was a coup. I watched the whole thing live. People have really short memory when the past does not serve their not-so-hidden agenda!
So because there was a revolution in Ukraine because the then president refused to do the people's will in regards to the EU, Russia is justified in invading a sovereign nation, Ukraine, taking its territory, kidnapping its children and raping, torturing and killing its citizens.
Russia has no right whatsoever to invade Ukraine. It doesn't matter that there was a "coup" in Ukraine.
If there's a coup in Mexico, the US isn't justified in annexing Mexico. That's just absurd.
Please, leave this place and never come back. You don't belong in civilized society.
This is no revolution. This was a coup funded by the US and the oligarchs. I hope you enjoy the result of this "revolution"! Over a million dead, hundreds of cities and villages turned into ruins, fertile soil poison and turned into Swiss cheese, plus, Russia is winning, and nobody is interested in supporting Ukraine anymore. Happy? It was well-worth it, right? Oh, and millions of Ukrainians fled the country and not coming back!
This was a coup funded by the US and the oligarchs.
I guess that's what you thought you saw. But since you've made a point of fabricating other plainly untenable information (e.g. "Over a million dead") and attempting to present it as fact -- it's a foregone conclusion that your narrative of the events of 2014 will be equally Swiss-cheesed with falsehoods and fabrications as well.
Again, enjoy your fruitful "revolution"! I saw what everybody saw, including the Western European media at the time!
I watch footage from both Ukraine and Russia on Telegram, so yeah, it's pretty much like Swiss cheese!
Encirclement and involvement in the 2014 coup, potential and steps toward NATO expansion