[davemp]

> People want to work on things that will help change the world and improve the quality of lives of other people, not make it easier to kill.

Plenty of military/government projects have changed the world for the better (ignoring geopolitics) including: modern surgery, the internet, GPS, cellphones, microwaves, canned food, duct tape, etc.

[lawrenceyan]

I would argue that these innovations were able to be created in spite of the military not because. Think of why the military exists. With finite resources at its disposal what does it fund to maximize its objective? Remember that the military exists only for one purpose, and that is the ability to wage war.

[citrablue]

I disagree, I think the military exists for the purpose of advancing American interests at home and abroad. Think of ships like the USS Mercy, or other humanitarian efforts.

What makes you think those innovations would have been created without the military? The US military does a lot of research that doesn't have immediate practical/commercial applications. They cost a lot of money, and don't have obvious payoffs, which make them a poor candidate to be funded by private investment.

[lawrenceyan]

> advancing American interests at home and abroad.

Just a nicer way of saying advancing the capability to wage war. Trying to hide the reality behind a veil does not remove the facts. War I repeat is a zero sum game, and contributes nothing to humanity besides the petty interests of nation states.

I agree with you though that the military does a ton of fundamental research. It's just a shame that for many scientists, the only way they can get funding is by being forced to think of ways that their area of research can be applied towards killing and destruction. There's a reason why in the greater scientific field, but especially that of ML/AI, that so many researchers are so adamantly against working on military applications of their research.