這封致微軟首席執(zhí)行官薩蒂亞·納德拉和董事長布拉德·史密斯的信函最初只在內部傳閱，但現在已經正式公布。相關的微軟員工抗議公司為軍方提供增強士兵殺傷力的技術，并認為這會將戰(zhàn)斗轉變?yōu)?ldquo;模擬游戲“，從而“進一步令士兵忘卻戰(zhàn)爭的殘酷風險和流血現實”。需要注意的是，微軟即將在西班牙當地時間周日舉行的MWC展前發(fā)布會中亮相新一代的HoloLens混合現實頭顯。目前微軟尚未對事件予以置評。

　　這只是又一次硅谷員工的“We Won’t Build It”運動。亞馬遜，微軟和谷歌等科技員工曾多次發(fā)起過抗議活動，反對公司提供存在人道主義問題的服務與產品。例如，谷歌員工在2018年6月曾迫使公司放棄了美國國防部的國防項目，同時在12月令其擱置為中國開發(fā)特定的搜索引擎產品Project Dragonfly。

　　這不是微軟員工第一次提出對政府濫用其技術的擔憂。在2018年6月，數百名員工簽署了一份請愿書，要求微軟放棄與美國移民和海關執(zhí)法局的合同。在2018年10月，一群員工要求公司取消其為美國國防部建設云服務的100億美元項目。然而，相關微軟員工的努力尚未成功迫使微軟放棄前面所述的政府合同。

　　盡管微軟正在鼓勵對面部識別技術進行監(jiān)管和道德辯論，但實際上他們正在加倍對向美國軍方和政府機構的技術支持。

　　微軟董事長史密斯在10月的一篇博文中指出：“我們相信美國需要強大的國防，而且我們希望保衛(wèi)我們國家的人員能夠獲得這個國家最佳的科技，包括來自微軟的技術。”

　　除了要求取消美國軍方的合同外，今天的公開請愿信同時呼吁微軟“暫停開發(fā)所有的武器技術”，起草一份相應的公開聲明，并建立一個外部審查委員會負責執(zhí)行與監(jiān)督。

　　信函同時承認，微軟已經建立了一項名為Aether的人工智能道德審查程序，但他們認為這一過程“對微軟員工來說不夠透明，顯然不足以阻止武器開發(fā)。”

　　微軟員工是否能改變公司在相關事項的立場仍有待觀察。下面是信函全文：

　　Dear Satya Nadella and Brad Smith,

　　We are a global coalition of Microsoft workers, and we refuse to create technology for warfare and oppression. We are alarmed that Microsoft is working to provide weapons technology to the U.S. Military, helping one country’s government “increase lethality” using tools we built. We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used.

　　In November, Microsoft was awarded the $479 million Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) contract with the United States Department of the Army. The contract’s stated objective is to “rapidly develop, test, and manufacture a single platform that Soldiers can use to Fight, Rehearse, and Train that provides increased lethality, mobility, and situational awareness necessary to achieve overmatch against our current and future adversaries.”. Microsoft intends to apply its HoloLens augmented reality technology to this purpose. While the company has previously licensed tech to the U.S. Military, it has never crossed the line into weapons development. With this contract, it does. The application of HoloLens within the IVAS system is designed to help people kill. It will be deployed on the battlefield, and works by turning warfare into a simulated “video game,” further distancing soldiers from the grim stakes of war and the reality of bloodshed.

　　Intent to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology.

　　We demand that Microsoft:

　　1) Cancel the IVAS contract;

　　2) Cease developing any and all weapons technologies, and draft a public-facing acceptable use policy clarifying this commitment;

　　3) Appoint an independent, external ethics review board with the power to enforce and publicly validate compliance with its acceptable use policy.

　　Although a review process exists for ethics in AI, AETHER, it is opaque to Microsoft workers, and clearly not robust enough to prevent weapons development, as the IVAS contract demonstrates. Without such a policy, Microsoft fails to inform its engineers on the intent of the software they are building. Such a policy would also enable workers and the public to hold Microsoft accountable.

　　Brad Smith’s suggestion that employees concerned about working 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. There are many engineers who contributed to HoloLens before this contract even existed, believing it would be used to help architects and engineers build buildings and cars, to help teach people how to perform surgery or play the piano, to push the boundaries of gaming, and to connect with the Mars Rover (RIP). These engineers have now lost their ability to make decisions about what they work on, instead finding themselves implicated as war profiteers.

　　Microsoft’s guidelines on accessibility and security go above and beyond because we care about our customers. We ask for the same approach to a policy on ethics and acceptable use of our technology. Making our products accessible to all audiences has required us to be proactive and unwavering about inclusion. If we don’t make the same commitment to be ethical, we won’t be. We must design against abuse 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 implicit in that statement, we believe it is also Microsoft’s mission to empower every person and organization on the planet to do good. We also need to be mindful of who we’re empowering and what we’re empowering them to do. Extending this core mission to encompass warfare and disempower Microsoft employees, is disingenuous, as “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 in its activities to empower the U.S. Army’s ability to cause harm and violence.

　　Microsoft Workers