[ad_1]
Dear Satya Nadella and Brad Smith,
We are a global coalition of Microsoft workers and we refuse to create technology for war and oppression. We are alarmed by the fact that Microsoft is striving to provide military technology to the US military, thus helping the government of a country to "increase lethality" using the tools we have designed. We have not signed up to develop weapons and we ask for our opinion on how our work is used.
In November, Microsoft won the $ 479 million Integrated Augmentation Visual System (IVAS) contract with the United States Army Department. The stated purpose of the contract is to "develop, test and quickly manufacture a unique platform that soldiers can use to combat, rehearse and train and that increases the lethality, mobility and situational awareness necessary to ensure an over-confrontation against our current and future adversaries ". . Microsoft intends to apply its HoloLens augmented reality technology for this purpose. Although the company previously granted a technology license to the US military, it never crossed the line of weapons development. With this contract, this is the case. The HoloLens application in the IVAS system is designed to help people kill. It will be deployed on the battlefield and will work by transforming war into a simulated "video game", further moving soldiers away from the dark stakes of war and the reality of bloodshed.
The intention to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology.
We require that Microsoft:
1) terminate the IVAS contract;
2) Stop developing any weapons technology and draft an acceptable use policy for the public clarifying this commitment;
3) Appoint an independent external ethics committee with the power to enforce and publicly validate compliance with its acceptable use policy.
Although an ethics review process at AI, AETHER, is opaque to Microsoft employees and is clearly not robust enough to prevent the development of weapons, as evidenced by the IVAS contract. Without such a strategy, Microsoft does not inform its engineers of the intent of the software they are building. Such a policy would also allow workers and the public to hold Microsoft accountable.
Brad Smith's suggestion that employees who are anxious to work on unethical projects "would be allowed to move to other work within the company" ignores the problem that workers are not properly informed of the use of their work. Before this contract existed, many engineers contributed to HoloLens, thinking that it would be used to help architects and engineers build buildings and cars, to teach people how to perform surgery or at the piano, connect with the Rover Mars (RIP). These engineers have now lost their ability to make decisions about their work, instead of being involved as war profiteers.
Microsoft's accessibility and security guidelines go beyond expectations because we care about our customers. We ask the same approach for an ethical policy and acceptable use of our technology. Making our products accessible to all audiences has forced us to be proactive and flawless in terms of inclusion. If we do not make the same commitment to be ethical, we will not be. We must conceive against the abuses and the potential to cause violence and harm.
Microsoft's mission is to empower every person and organization on the planet to do more. But implicitly in this statement, we believe that Microsoft's mission is also to give every person and organization on the planet the means to do good. We also need to be aware of who we are empowering and empowering them to do. Extending this essential mission to embrace war and free Microsoft employees is an illusion, because "every person" also means empowering us. As employees and shareholders, we do not want to become war profiteers. To that end, we believe that Microsoft must stop working to strengthen the US military's ability to cause harm and violence.
[ad_2]
Source link