Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States The Military

Anduril Founder Luckey: Every Country Needs a 'Warrior Class' Excited To Enact 'Violence on Others in Pursuit of Good Aims' 175

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Anduril founder Palmer Luckey advocated for a "warrior class" and autonomous weapons during a talk at Pepperdine University. The defense tech entrepreneur, known for his Hawaiian shirts and mullet, argued that societies need people "excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims."

Luckey revealed that Anduril supplied weapons to Ukraine two weeks into the Russian invasion, lamenting that earlier involvement could have made "a really big difference." He criticized Western hesitancy on AI development, claiming adversaries are waging a "shadow campaign" against it in the United Nations. Contradicting his co-founder's stance, Luckey endorsed fully autonomous weapons, comparing them favorably to indiscriminate landmines.

Anduril Founder Luckey: Every Country Needs a 'Warrior Class' Excited To Enact 'Violence on Others in Pursuit of Good Aims' More | Reply

Anduril Founder Luckey: Every Country Needs a 'Warrior Class' Excited To Enact 'Violence on Others in Pursuit of Good Aims'

Comments Filter:

  • For Every Swole Jeff Bezos (Score:3)

    by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @10:44AM (#64833843)
    And you're saying these pale VR-besotted couch worms are this warrior caste?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rinnon ( 1474161 )

      And you're saying these pale VR-besotted couch worms are this warrior caste?

      I mean, yeah.

      What are you imagining it would be? An ancient Greek hoplite phalanx, full of ripped dudes obsessed with honor, yet harbouring a gentle disposition for their family back home?

    • I want to agree, but there are some crazy videos out there of little remote control drones stalking, seemingly taunting, then finally obliterating a solder on the ground running in every direction with no escape. In the Ukraine war, at least the videos they choose to release, the most physical soldiers are the doomed Russian meat waves.

      Maybe this turning point was reached way back with artillery in WWI.

      • They're Russian. They're invading someone else's country. Does it matter how they're killed?

        • I was replying to the GP and the assumption that "pale VR-besotted couch worms" don't belong to the "warrior caste."

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by haruchai ( 17472 )

          They're Russian. They're invading someone else's country. Does it matter how they're killed?

          Yes, it does.

      • That sounds terrifying. Are these remote bomb drones or do they have some sort of other weapon on them?
        • The ones I have seen are remote bomb drones.

          I have seen a video of a drone with an AK47 lashed to it but it didn't seem to have an effective aiming mechanism and was in testing not combat.

          There is also a whole new genre of drones flying up high to intercept and then crash into surveillance drones - a battle between pale VR-besotted couch worms on both sides.

    • And you're saying these pale VR-besotted couch worms are this warrior caste?

      Uh, yes. With appropriate amounts of focus on those autonomous solutions. Fire, forget, and order pizza. All right from the comfort of a basement couch.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        With a datalink, not only would a weapon be able to find and engage targets, but report targets in excess of what it can engage to other weapons systems. Which in turn might find *more* targets en route, and so forth. Of course, a datalink significantly increases cost and complexity.

        Seems you'll need a mix of prop-propelled (long loiter time) and rocket-propelled (rapid response time), but should probably be able to use the same seeker system for both types.

        Free open source multimodal models like Molmo alre

    • Yes, and that's extra frightening because they're divorced from the killing. If you don't have to deal with the consequences and you're distanced from the experience of your actions by telepresence, it's a LOT easier to do monstrous things.

      On the other hand, I guess they're less likely to snap in the heat of combat and do monstrous things, so there's that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
        Wartime rape would drop. We could always use less war rape... /s

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        Yeah, honestly, I'm a lot more worried about soldiers on the ground in the heat of battle doing monstrous things than drones.

      • For some maybe. But I imagine that some of the psycology of war only works by placing yourself in danger.
      • Not at all true. Turns out drone pilots have it harder [nytimes.com] precisely because they don't have the mental space afforded by the "deployment bubble." It's apparently quite difficult to kill people, then stop for milk on the way home.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Yes. They're the ones with by far the highest success rate at destroying enemy men and materiel in Ukraine war right now. A very large percentage, probably a significant majority of FPV pilots are nerds.

  • let's play global thermonuclear war (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @10:44AM (#64833845)

    let's play global thermonuclear war

    What side do you want?

  • Define "Good Aims" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @10:45AM (#64833849) Homepage Journal

    The defense tech entrepreneur, known for his Hawaiian shirts and mullet, argued that societies need people "excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims."

    So, for example, if the "wrong candidate" wins the U.S. 2024 presidential election, it's OK for the losing side to enact "violence on others in pursuit of good aims"?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jeti ( 105266 )
      I'm sure he is thinking along the lines of Antifa or Black Panthers and not along the lines of the KKK or border guards shooting refugees. /s

  • Great idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JamesTRexx ( 675890 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @10:48AM (#64833869) Journal

    It would be good to eliminate psychopaths from society, so let's send the first warrior to this guy.

    • Re:Great idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HBI ( 10338492 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @10:56AM (#64833897)

      This guy is just another chickenhawk. Lots of them around.

      You rarely hear someone who actually saw combat who talks like this.

      • This guy is just another chickenhawk. Lots of them around.

        You rarely hear someone who actually saw combat who talks like this.

        Yup. There's always someone who is willing to shed someone else's blood ...

      • As a member of the 'warrior class' as much as any member of the military in the USA is, I can attest to the fact that actual combat soldiers and Marines are almost never 'excited' about doing violence in pursuit of supposed 'good aims'. At least not once they experience combat... Sure, there are some, though honestly not many. A famous singer/songwriter back in the 60's portrayed all members of the military as 'morons, psychopaths and mental defectives' , but that was NOT my experience as a soldier at all.

        • In my discussions with military members who served in wars I have learned that there are plenty of shit stacks among them. The army ranger I talked about Vietnam with told me that he was outnumbered by child rapists, for example.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HBI ( 10338492 )

            Yes, there are thieves and shitbags in the service. Just like in any other large group of people. The Army for instance, did a lot of recruiting of PTI people who were facing convictions and took enlistment as an alternative during the recent endless wars.

            There are a lot of great people also. It's a mixed bag.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rei ( 128717 )

              The problem is that it's a mixed bag armed with howitzers.

              (I definitely don't want to single out the US military in specific here for criticism, BTW - far from it.)

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by HBI ( 10338492 )

                I consider this truth you describe as another confirmation of Sherman's dictum about war being hell.

                The day someone recruits a 100% decent and honorable military force will be the day you know you are asleep. It's just a dream.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HBI ( 10338492 )

          Iraq 07/08 didn't turn me into a pacifist but certainly convinced me that acting as global police is horrific. Being a colonial warrior sucks. Fighting for the defense of your own home is not comparable.

          • Yep, and the 'Global War on Terror' is just stupid, you can't win a war against an idea, nor does killing terrorists ensure that other terrorists don't spring up to replace them

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by haruchai ( 17472 )

          "A famous singer/songwriter back in the 60's portrayed all members of the military as 'morons, psychopaths and mental defectives' "
          Was that a reference to McNamara's Folly?
           

        • I was not accepted into the military. I got as far as MEPS and found out I have a disqualifying condition. I cannot say who else of the crew I saw that day entered the military. But I hope that many were weeded out. A good number of the group were morons, psychopaths, and mentally defective all rolled up in one. I'd like to think that most of them didn't make it past basic. There were also quite a number of very nice kids in the crowd who I would have been proud to be in the military with. I hope the

          • Re:Great idea (Score:4, Informative)

            by LazarusQLong ( 5486838 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @01:34PM (#64834541)
            My group I went through basic with, those types all got weeded out, some did the weeding all by themselves.... for example, the bully who picked on the little guys, well... one day he had a series of small accidents and he discovered that picking on people who may, some day, be trying to save your life is stupid. Especially as he was a large guy and just felt it was his god given right to pick on people smaller than he... The guy who was talking about how he couldn't wait to kill people? he didn't make it TO basic, he was washed out at MEPS. The rest of the guys in my COHORT, well, I may not have wanted to be friends with all of them, but I sure as hell thought they were almost all good people at heart. I mean of the 500 guys in my COHORT we had men who were put out for dealing drugs (after his court marital, 7 years in Leavenworth), one guy used his Ranger training to plan thievery across the civilian stores outside of base, He was put out after his court marital, then he was delivered to the civilian authorities to be tried for his crimes.... I'd guess that of the 500, maybe 470 - 485 were still in when re-enlistment time came along.

            Of course, during the USA's recent adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, they had such a hard time getting recruits that they did loosen standards, unfortunately. That only hurts the military, but, you know, politicians (and never forget or think otherwise anyone who is a General or an Admiral is a politician)

  • Competition (Score:3)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @10:55AM (#64833887)

    He's... not wrong.

    We should be really scared of people who are excited about finding ways to kill people we (or our allies) are in conflict with, but they're a necessary evil as those people exist on the other side of the conflict.

    They are weapons, ideally to be controlled by more measured and compassionate people, and deployed in self-defense against people who aren't quite so restrained.

    For instance, the people finding new ways to kill Russian troops in Ukraine. They're getting lots of people killed, but it's justified because Russia invaded and started indiscriminately killing a lot of innocent people.

    • Re:Competition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @11:06AM (#64833929)
      A lot of people would agree with "necessary evil." Being "excited about enacting violence" though...? No, that's no good. Even in military units, the dutiful warriors recognize a distinction between themselves and the psychos.

      • You can try to be the mournful moral guy who regrets firing every round, but you'll go nuts faster than the guy propagandized into hating the enemy as subhuman and enthusiastic about shooting 'monsters'.

        People (surprisingly) really don't like killing people. You will not have an effective military if they're worried about the people they're supposed to be killing.

        What you want them to do is to care about collateral damage and avoid conflating enemy combatants and civilians and compartmentalize their motiva

      • A lot of people would agree with "necessary evil." Being "excited about enacting violence" though...? No, that's no good. Even in military units, the dutiful warriors recognize a distinction between themselves and the psychos.

        Warriors have to have a warrior ethos, and they have to be motivated to be better warriors than the ones on the other side that want to kill you and yours. They have to like what they do. This isn't hard to understand. I don't want soldiers and Marines that hate being soldiers and Marines. They wouldn't be very good at their duties.

        Writers from George Orwell to Rudyard Kipling were quick to point out the hypocrisy of people that condemned the warrior class:

        “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - Orwell, 1945, from Notes on Nationalism

        • Orwell did sign up to fight himself. I'm not saying he's wrong, but he will have gone through some process of rationalizing that choice so he may not be a reliable unbiased source.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mackil ( 668039 )

      He's... not wrong.

      We should be really scared of people who are excited about finding ways to kill people we (or our allies) are in conflict with, but they're a necessary evil as those people exist on the other side of the conflict.

      They are weapons, ideally to be controlled by more measured and compassionate people, and deployed in self-defense against people who aren't quite so restrained.

      For instance, the people finding new ways to kill Russian troops in Ukraine. They're getting lots of people killed, but it's justified because Russia invaded and started indiscriminately killing a lot of innocent people.

      Like the Training Day [imdb.com] quote...

      "To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf, and it takes a wolf to catch a wolf."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      No, he's wrong, you just don't think so because you can only think of yourself. "More measured and compassionate people" don't view others as "weapons" to be "deployed", though clearly you do.

      "For instance, the people finding new ways to kill Russian troops in Ukraine. They're getting lots of people killed, but it's justified because Russia invaded and started indiscriminately killing a lot of innocent people."

      Where in that example is there a "warrior class" that is "excited to enact ‘violence on oth

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 0xG ( 712423 )

      He's... not wrong.

      We should be really scared of people who are excited about finding ways to kill people ...

      I have to think that armies are a good way to keep thugs off the street: think mafia, hoods, etc. Give them a home that keeps them away from the rest of society.

      • Unfortunately they get trained to do violence and then eventually released, and they become more of a problem. Unless of course you get them killed first, how moral.

      • people who's motivation is self interest (not 'enlightened self interest' mind you) don't make good soldiers. A good soldier does what needs doing when it needs doing NOT because it is best for him at the time,,, we washed out troops like that in Basic Training because you have to do what needs doing even when it isn't going to do something directly FOR you!

  • It's sad and unfortunate... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @11:04AM (#64833921)

    ...that barbaric people like that exist
    Hopefully, someday, we will evolve beyond violence and war

    • ...that barbaric people like that exist Hopefully, someday, we will evolve beyond violence and war

      Ukraine seemed pretty peaceful. I don't think the occupants of the World Trade Center in 2001 "deserved" violence. The shitty fact about life is you have to be ready to enact violence or else you will have violence enacted on you. I don't fear for my safety and have been able to live in peace and prosperity because my country has a long history attacking people when provoked.

      Of course, every contrarian POS on /. will point out a list of all the terrible things the US military has done, but on balance,

    • ...that barbaric people like that exist Hopefully, someday, we will evolve beyond violence and war

      Right now we lift people like this up. Deranged psychopath? Promote that motherfucker to the C-Suites, or better yet, have him run for office!

      We're headed the wrong direction to move beyond violence. We've let ourselves be led down a path where hate is our prime motivation, and violence is the end-result of hate as an ethos.

    • Re:It's sad and unfortunate... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ZeroPly ( 881915 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @12:02PM (#64834105)

      Yes, it would be nice if we evolved beyond violence. But consider this analogy...

      Ralph sees a $250 pair of heavy selvedge denim jeans that he absolutely loves, and he thinks is worth every penny. The store has all sizes in stock. He has a size 44 waist right now, but has been trying to lose weight for the last two decades, and doesn't want to buy a size 44 because then if he loses weight, he'll have a useless pair of jeans.

      So he buys a size 36, all excited about how his new jeans are going to look on him.

      Is this a good or bad decision? I think most of us will agree that the nice new jeans are going to gather dust in his closet, most likely permanently.

      That's the same thing modern progressives are doing when they make all their plans around a world free of violence. Right now, people with guns effect change - from way before I was born, when they were storming Normandy. Even Karl Marx was an advocate of arming the workers. And I doubt it's going to change in my lifetime. So make plans that work, not plans that rely on rosy visions of enlightenment.

      • yep. what many people seem not to understand is that for the entirety of recorded history we, as a race, have never gone past 50 years of peace, it has always been that somewhere, someone was fighting. It seems that most USAians thought there was peace back in the 80's when the Tamil Tigers were doing shit in Sri Lanka, in the late 70's they thought there was peace because the USA left Vietnam, they didn't care that Vietnam had an 8 year war with China (who wanted to 'take back' Vietnam as one of their prov

    • ...that barbaric people like that exist
      Hopefully, someday, we will evolve beyond violence and war

      We're humans, and thus, have Human Nature. There is no "evolving" out of it. This is real life, not a shitty Star Trek script. Humans are not programmable blank slates that can be written and re-written as politics sees fit. The impulse and instinct for violence and self preservation is built into us at our deepest level, and will always be with us.

      • Scale can change though. I could imagine a time when it was settlement against settlement, city against city, county against county, state against state. Or does texas only feel safe because it is armed to the teeth and ready to repel an attack by Oklahoma ?

  • So? (Score:4, Informative)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @11:04AM (#64833923) Homepage
    The headline itself seems to be meant to elicit outrage, but only amongst people who refuse to live in the real world. For the rest of us, who understand that the role of a state is to hold the monopoly on the use of violence in society, it's hardly a shocking idea. In general, you can't go forcibly take someone's stuff, but the court can decide that you *must* pay someone, and the police will happily accompany the creditor to your house so they can take your stuff. The state can evict you from your house, and if you refuse to leave, you will be forced to leave. And when it comes to geopolitical interactions... "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is the way it's done. This is not just how the world works, but until humans literally evolve into something different (ala Star Trek), this is how the world *must* work. Criminology 101 says womething like 20 to 25% of people would be willing to commit a crime for personal gain if they thought they could get away with it. All of our laws, rules, social norms and international agreements... everything that makes up our society... at the end of the day can only exist because some mechanism exists to force compliance. People don't realize this?

    • If you haven't yet, read TimeOday's comment above.

    • Regardless of whether anything you're saying is even remotely true or not, no one who claims to be a 'civilized, sentient being' should be advocating for more war and violence, and it's reprehensible to do so.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dirk ( 87083 )

      What you are saying is basically true, but is not the argument he put forth. You are saying violence may at times be needed to run a country. He is saying we need people "excited about enacting violence on others". That is a world of difference. A police officer may need to shoot someone at times, they should not be excited about getting to shoot someone. Violence should be looked at as a last resort. If they people able to do violence are excited by being able to violence, you have the wrong people allowed

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        I've met American marines, and I can tell you the few I've met are certainly "excited" at the violence inherent in their jobs. They're professionals, they're intelligent, and they're good neighbors, but if the commander in chief told them that the building over there needs to be smashed, they'll smash it and everyone inside with delightful glee. You and I hope they'll never be needed, but they're a force that allows the US to go to the negotiating table with real influence. It's very much up to the civil

  • Lately I've been pondering the question of perfidy in relation to autonomous weapons. Is fooling a machine into thinking you are a friend the same as wearing your opponents uniform? Or is it perfectly acceptable like a decoy used to distract seekers?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sconeu ( 64226 )

      A few years back, I was writing a term paper about autonomous weaponry (more from a legal viewpoint), but I really hate the concept of them in general. I'm going to have to go dredge it up and reread it.

      • So in a far future where wars are fought by hourdes of autonomous machines from different sides with no humans involved will that be a good thing. Why not just compare GDPs and declare a winner ?

  • What a tool. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @11:06AM (#64833927)
    Someone needs to inform him that selling weapons does not make him a "warrior." A more appropriate term would be "chaos vampire".

    • Nicolas Cage in Lord of War said it best: There's nothing more expensive for an arms dealer than peace ... There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11? ... You know who's going to inherit the Earth? Arms dealers. Because everyone else is too busy killing each other. That's the secret to survival. Never go to war. Especially with yourself.

  • or a 12 year old that watches too many "bad-ass" movies?
  • I doubt Lucky cares; he gets to move product and fantasize either way; but it seems like a trivially bad idea to cultivate people who are "enthusiastic" about 'enacting violence' rather than merely willing.

    The old "when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail" issue is bad enough; but if all you have is a hammer and you really enjoy hammering it will be a full time job keeping you from finding nails everywhere and getting out of hand.

  • Not really the violent type (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peterww ( 6558522 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @11:30AM (#64834005)

    This guy looks like he's an 18 year old programmer with chin pubes. Probably never been in a fight in his life.

    This pampered rich guy is advocating for warfare because *he is going to profit off it*, and because *he likes it*. Is that a good reason to commit violence? Because it'll make you money and you like it?

    For most of the development of "civilized" culture, there has been a focus on warfare as a means of _survival_, in addition to increasing personal and national wealth. Western Europe (and probably Asia as well) developed civilization further in the middle ages mostly in order to fund warfare (paying for professional soldiers, weapons, food and supplies is expensive, so you have to start taxing and developing your civilization more in order to better organize your expensive complicated wars).

    It's only in the the last 50 years that the idea of obligatory military service and drafts have begun to end. It's mostly through the expansion of global trade and intwining of global markets that global war has become less feasible (you hurt other countries and you end up hurting yourself). We don't need to wage war to survive anymore, and we don't need to increase our borders to increase our profits. Capitalism is the new battlefield. It's not without its victims, but we don't have to bomb hundreds of thousands of people anymore.

    We should invest ourselves more into stopping the war in Ukraine. But moreover, we should focus on preventing the next one. Not building bigger bombs and more vicious killing machines.

    • You're right, this little pissant would probably shit himself if someone pointed a gun at him, and has no idea whatsoever about the horrors of actual war.
    • the only way to 'stop' the war in Ukraine is to hand it to Putin, that sounds like a great plan.
  • In a fallen world with imperfect people, every society must be willing to use violence to protect itself. It doesn't meant you always have to use violence, but you have to credibly be willing and able.

  • AI and robotics are coming with or without your approval. It will be better if the US is at the forefront

    We will need it given what Biden/Harris has unleashed on America [x.com].

  • I hereby nominate fucktard Palmer Luckey to be the first recipient of this "enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims."

    Let him have a taste of his own medicine and see how it goes down.

  • "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

    Maybe someday that will no longer be true--we can only hope. But that day is not today.

  • Military contractor advocates for more war (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @12:04PM (#64834117) Journal
    That's what the headline here should read.
    We don't need a gods-be-damned fuckin' """warrior class""". We should be working towards acting like a real grown-up sentient species that doesn't make war on themselves anymore.
    Seriously, we're an embarassment as a species right now, positively cringeworthy, claiming we're 'civilized'.

  • The catch is who decides what "right aims" are

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us

Close