Innovation has not been in defense engineering lately because the US has lost A LOT of public trust when it comes to the defense industry in the wake of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The US is not the country, nor do they have the reputation in front of the public that led to the Manhattan project, where the greatest minds would willingly work on defense projects, not just willingly but eagerly.
The breakthroughs are also less than they used to be. We have the nuke. We have reached space. We've hit the peaks. Everything else is just automatic turrets and AI to choose who to kill.
I remember being in college. I went to a top CS school (perhaps the top CS school), and it was often considered a black mark if you went to work for a defense company (even Palantir). It was also a different time, when we had our pick of companies to work at, not like today. But that sentiment is hard to shake off. I'm not convinced it is not still large in academia and the CS world today
I also went to a/the top CS school. When I graduated I would have never considered working at a defense company. Now, after bouncing around big tech and startups for a few years, I am a few days away from accepting a position at one. What changed? Appreciation for how entirely insignificant to downright harmful the rest of the industry is, perhaps. I made changes that impacted tens of millions of users in... no significant way whatsoever. Certainly not anything they'd remember on their deathbed. And what else is out there? Finding better algorithms to keep people hooked on their phones watching ads for longer, making more bullshit "AI" products to strip communication of all personality, and hundreds and hundreds of healthcare startups begging me to help them "cut out the middleman" in X healthcare system and replace them with... themselves! Idk. If I can make one anti-drone system take down one more suicide drone than it'd be able to without me, I'm 100% sure whoever would have been on the other end of that kamikaze will appreciate my efforts a hell of a lot more than the 2^25 people I fed a slightly different arrangement of pixels than they'd have gotten without me.
That, and Poorly Targeted Revenge for 9/11 was not the most inspiring mission. Great Power Competition, however? I can get my blood pumping red, white, and blue for Great Power Competition.
> I made changes that impacted
> tens of millions of users in...
> no significant way whatsoever.
> Certainly not anything they'd
> remember on their deathbed [...]
Going into defense to directly contribute to someone's deathbed experience is certainly one way to guarantee that you'll make it memorable.
The defense industry isn't just "defense" against bad people. Is it better to optimize the colors of buttons, or work on projects that could potentially kill innocent civilians?
Wars suck. But sometimes the result of not fighting a war sucks more. Sure, military projects could POTENTIALLY kill innocent civilians. But that's not a guarantee, modern Western militaries go out of their way to minimize that, and again sometimes the result of not fighting a war would cause even more innocent people to suffer or die.
The idea that "this one bad thing could happen, therefore I will do nothing that could remotely cause this one bad thing" is childish reasoning.
There are plenty of things that people can and do in private industry that are significantly more harmful than making some incremental improvement in a weapons platform.
I'd argue that working on the right projects reduces the likelihood of collateral damage.
Take for example the R9X [0]. Instead of an explosive warhead it has a set of blades on the tip. The US has used it to assassinate single people in the passenger seat of a car while leaving the driver untouched. I'd rather this than dropping bombs on terrorists that come with a blast radius that takes out everyone else nearby.
This seems net-good to me. There are certainly people alive today because of the R9X team's work.
There are lots of things in the public sector that also kill people, unfortunately. While often less indirect or over time, companies simply trying to make a buck (be capitalist) have led to products, processes, trends, etc. that have killed a lot of people over time.
I think the conclusion is that there is very little justified technology development that actually betters society, except for things that actually save people from dying. Things like healthcare, utilities, civil engineering, defense, etc. However, almost all of those industries are mired in bureaucracy and are the ultimate examples of such.
The catch with all those things that "actually save people from dying" is that they happen to be the same things that "could potentially kill innocent civilians". Any pharmaceutical researcher, surgeon, civil engineer, utility worker, and yes – defense contractor, has the ability to kill innocent civilians. But they by and large continue to do their work on a belief that by doing X job to the best of their ability, they will have a positive impact on the world that will leave it in a better place than if either nobody did the job, or someone with less experience than themselves executed it poorly.
Regarding defense specifically, there is no shortage of ways for maniacal dictators to raze entire cities to the ground under the justification that "bad guys were in the tunnels". That is, in effect, a solved problem – many times over. Accordingly, that is not where the research money is being spent. Rather, the goal of most new "Defense" is to achieve those same mission goals (kill the bad guys) with as little civilian casualties as possible, or to protect our own assets against such attacks as well as possible.
That 'cut out the middleman' angle always makes me chuckle. I remember seeing an ad on the tube for Made.com offering to cut out the middleman in furniture purchasing - what are you if not a middleman I thought!
I still think the defense industry is the greater evil (since nearly everything that starts out as "defense" ends up being used for "offense"), but I 100% agree with your argument against the modern tech industry.
I think you’re probably right, and to those who share that anti-US government sentiment here, I’d like to say: “wake up”! If you think the US is bad, wait till you try Russia or China. I have three refugees in my house. They may never now return home.
Sure, I'm fine with that. What I object to is people using the US's flaws or past mistakes as a reason for isolationism or surrender to far worse actors.
"I'll make products that cause civil unrest, poison the political systems of entire countries, and give young girls mental issues, but I'll be damned if I work for that nasty military-industrial complex; I'm too moral for that!"
And it's frankly a childish sentiment. Go look at what's happening in Ukraine today. Why did that occur? Because a dictator woke up on the wrong side of the bed and said "you have, I want, I take." Military force and military innovation is the only thing stopping him from literally committing genocide against the Ukrainian people. Not "genocide" as in faculty lounge hyperbole . . . actual genocide.
The US is not the country, nor do they have the reputation in front of the public that led to the Manhattan project, where the greatest minds would willingly work on defense projects, not just willingly but eagerly.
The breakthroughs are also less than they used to be. We have the nuke. We have reached space. We've hit the peaks. Everything else is just automatic turrets and AI to choose who to kill.
I remember being in college. I went to a top CS school (perhaps the top CS school), and it was often considered a black mark if you went to work for a defense company (even Palantir). It was also a different time, when we had our pick of companies to work at, not like today. But that sentiment is hard to shake off. I'm not convinced it is not still large in academia and the CS world today