That’s far too subjective to be of any legal value. If you want that, you’ll need to (a) spell out what you want to allow, (b) spell out what you want to disallow, or (c) just write the subjective thing out plain and simple and don’t even bother with complying with license norms (e.g. just write “you can do whatever you want with this provided it is for the benefit of humanity”).
That's a fair criticism. My idea of good is not defined, or static - it adapts over time to the norms and values of society.
Perhaps something like the OpenAI approach to their GPT-3 deal with Microsoft is better. That is, if the work Microsoft do with GPT-3 goes in a direction OpenAI doesn't like, OpenAI reserves the right to veto the work [1].
Of course a person has to have some sort of opinion of it under such conditions, but is it going to come down mostly condemning the weapons enabling the aggressor or thankful for the weapons that enable some measure of violent defense?
The Slaughterbots campaign argued, rightly, I think, that advanced autonomous lethal weapons should be suppressed because they enable unethical uses and unscrupulous actors far more than legitimate defense.
It can't really be seen in isolation from the environment (social, economical, etc) it's going to come into I suppose, but in the real, concrete world we have creating them is not a neutral act, and some of the consequences are reasonably predictable.
I think there are some instances where it's definitely bad. E.g. weapons that, if used, can by themselves extinguish humanity. Most instances are not that clear unfortunately - lots of sides to the story, extenuating circumstances, etc. etc.
It's not an easy question. However, as the creator of the software I guess I feel that my opinion should count in how it's used. As a simplistic example, if in some dystopian timeline my OSS were used to facilitate a holocaust I'd like to be able to do something to halt that. It doesn't matter that the perpetrators feel that what they're doing is right.
