Palmer Luckey: Every country needs a 'warrior class' to enact violence on others

https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/01/palmer-luckey-every-country-needs-a-warrior-class-excited-to-enact-violence-on-others-in-pursuit-of-good-aims/

by anigbrowl • 2 years ago

20 35 2 years ago

techcrunch.com

nikolay5• 2 years ago

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.

aguaviva5• 2 years ago

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.

nikolay5• 2 years ago

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.

quantified• 2 years ago

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.

Cheyana• 2 years ago

“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.

nytesky2• 2 years ago

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.”

clipsy• 2 years ago

A pretty important difference is that Palmer Luckey has never and will never be "on that wall."

cafard• 2 years ago

As somebody remarked at the time, this might have been more plausible if the wall hadn't been that separating Guantanamo Bay from the rest of Cuba.

Jerrrry2• 2 years ago

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.

aguaviva5• 2 years ago

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.

snowwrestler2• 2 years ago

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.

lbotos• 2 years ago

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.

edmundsauto• 2 years ago

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.

fargle• 2 years ago

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!

defrost2• 2 years ago

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?

snowwrestler2• 2 years ago

Neither citizenship nor military service is limited to land owners in the U.S.

hollerith• 2 years ago

Today, anyone can volunteer for military service and (again, if medically cleared) they will get trained up and added to the military.

That's not true: the US military for example won't take you if your IQ is under some threshold (85 IIRC) or if you've been convicted of any but the most innocuous of crimes.

If the US finds itself in a major war, those requirements would probably go away, but they've been in place continuously for decades.

Jerrrry2• 2 years ago

I've never heard of more obvious statement been so blatantly disagreed with by people who should genuinely know better.

alsaaro• 2 years ago

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.

hi-v-rocknroll2• 2 years ago

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.

rawgabbit• 2 years ago

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.

steego• 2 years ago

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.

hi-v-rocknroll2• 2 years ago

Water is wet and this techbro profiteers from war, so obviously he's pro war and violence.

throwaway48476• 2 years ago

Another in a long line of those who would ask for others to suffer on their behalf. It's not as if palmer is offering to fight. Absolute parasite behavior.

Palmer Luckey: Every country needs a 'warrior class' to enact violence on others

Related Stories