In 2015 Alphabet changed their motto to "do the right thing". If you interpret "right" as "correct", then "doing the right thing" can mean 'correctly' bombing civilians.
You'd think that people would know that concepts like "good" and "evil" are complex and somewhat subjective. There are plenty of times when you can kill someone and not be considered "evil".
At the very least, most people agree that killing in self defense is not evil.
It's not directly killing people. That's like saying helping improve GPS satellites kills people because weapons systems use GPS and would benefit from increased accuracy.
Those people would almost certainly been targeted by manned jets. The US still sends out tons of manned combat missions (as many as 20 sorties a day from a single carrier according to this article: https://news.usni.org/2018/03/19/u-s-evolving-middle-east-op...)
> Those people would almost certainly been targeted by manned jets.
I doubt it, considering the cost of manned jets and their limited time-on-target, political fallout, risk to pilots, etc. Drones are stealthy, silent, cheap to operate, have long time on target, and have both surveillance and attack capabilities. Drones are the key enabler for this completely unprecedented type of pervasive, constant warfare.
People who want to make drones "more efficient" at this job are totally missing the point. Making them even more efficient just means they'll be even more widely deployed, which makes the whole problem even worse. The wider deployment completely dwarfs any savings from "less collateral damage". We need to stop drone warfare, not make it better. Return to the rule of law.
Which is a very plausible assumption, considering dropping traditional bombs is much more inconvenient for the killers. With drone attacks, the cost and political fallout is minimal. And with more meal available, the appetite grows - the killers will use the new capabilities to do more killing.