Should a company like Meta be involved in military combat technology?
Anytime we want to see technological advancements, we either keep an eye on Product Hunt, Techcrunch or the military. And that's today's case.
In the morning, I read this announcement:
Meta is partnering with defense tech company Anduril to develop AR/VR headsets for the U.S. military, starting with a new device called “EagleEye.” The new headset will include night vision, thermal sensing, and augmented reality features.
The partnership has raised eyebrows due to Meta’s role in data and AI, and the ethical implications of a social media giant entering the military tech space.
I know that during the last century, large companies also adapted to the situation (e.g. AT&T and IBM also influenced the events of WW2 through their activities)...
How do you perceive this move by Meta?
Can we trust companies like this, with their track record on privacy and data ethics, to handle tools of war?
I am really curious: does this excite you, concern you, or both? 😅
Replies
minimalist phone: creating folders
Eagle Eye project :)
Source: Palmer
App Finder
I actually don't see a reason why "a company like Meta" shouldn't build military combat technology. What would be better if they didn't?
(If every company in every country would stop building military technology things might get better. But since that is not happening, I think what really matters is that the governments and military commanders make good decisions.)
Regarding "trusting companies like this", it's clearly the responsibility of a ministry of defence to thoroughly evaluate military technology it purchases before it is used (and possibly to monitor the development and production).
Excited or concerned?
Of course I'm concerned that new technologies could make wars even worse. The only scenario I'd be excited about would be if autonomous / remote-controlled machinery would replace soldiers completely, and killing any humans would be banned.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@konrad_sx I am partially aligned with the second point – no humans harmed, but we all know that this will not happen in the war. Because part of war is psychological harm, and it cannot be done without torturing people and endangering the lives of those we love most.
App Finder
@busmark_w_nika I was talking of harming any humans being banned internationally, just like certain actions are currently banned as war crimes. Not that no one would do it anymore (although that would be the ultimate goal of course). I know most people would probably call me crazy for suggesting this might actually happen, but we must remember that there has been a certain kind of very important "moral progress" (e.g. cruel forms of execution, slavery etc. have been abolished in nearly all parts of the world).