3 ms·

Of course it has increased, there are many more drones out there. The hypothesis is whether drones would do more collateral damage compared to humans tasked wit

by xixi77 11y ago

Of course it has increased, there are many more drones out there. The hypothesis is whether drones would do more collateral damage compared to humans tasked with the same job. Also, to my knowledge all current drones are not closed systems, and there is always a human pressing a button, so they aren't even a subject of this article?

Phlarp 11y ago
Right, a human always has a close eye on the drone's operations, so if it were to target something silly like an MSF hospital the human operator can stop the strike! Drones will be deployed in situations where human based intervention would otherwise be a political non-option, thus creating collateral damage where there otherwise would be none. The cold truth is that an algorithm chooses the where (based on automatically collected and analyzed metadata no less!) a machine relays the commands, an interface displays the target coordinates and then the human obeys.
- xixi77 11y ago
  Or, differently phrased, achieving political objectives that would have otherwise not been feasible. It is not obvious to me that a side relatively more tolerant to own casualties should enjoy the political advantage. Also, do we discount casualties that the intended targets would likely have inflicted, had they not been eliminated? In any case, this article is not about merits of drones per se, just about the self-targeting ones. So when you say that "an algorithm chooses the where" -- any reference for that?
  - Phlarp 11y ago
    Here is a link where the Director of the CIA openly and proudly admits to killing people based on meta-data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdQiz0Vavmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdQiz0Vavmc Surely you don't think they have gymnasiums full of junior analysts trying to manually correlate phone call metadata? At some level an algorithm decides someone specific crosses the probability threshold for our definition of "terrorist" and it's all rubber stamps from there until the hellfire blows up a wedding[1], funeral[2] or hospital[3]. [1]: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into... [2]: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/drone-attacks-at-funerals-of-people-killed-in-drone-strikes/280821/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/dro... [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/world/asia/doctors-without-borders-says-it-is-leaving-kunduz-after-strike-on-hospital.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/world/asia/doctors-without...
    - xixi77 11y ago
      Well, IMO there is a big difference between humans looking at algorithm-provided evidence (even if it's often rubber-stamping), and drones acting on that evidence directly.
    - grkvlt 11y ago
      Yes, but your examples [1,2,3] are neither the desired, nor the likely outcome. In most cases, the correct (not nescessarily the best or morally right) target is eliminated. In fact, I suspect (and would be interested in data that could prove or disprove this) that the erroneous outcome types [1,2,3] you list are _less_ likely with drones and automated systems than with humans on the front line and the attendant stress and confusion implicit in that situation...
      - Phlarp 11y ago
        In [1] and [2] the "target" of the strike was eliminated and the dozen or so civilians that died in each are considered acceptable collateral damage. I suspect this is also the case for [3], however they are unlikely to own up to that publicly

by xixi77 11y ago

Phlarp 11y ago

Right, a human always has a close eye on the drone's operations, so if it were to target something silly like an MSF hospital the human operator can stop the strike! Drones will be deployed in situations where human based intervention would otherwise be a political non-option, thus creating collateral damage where there otherwise would be none. The cold truth is that an algorithm chooses the where (based on automatically collected and analyzed metadata no less!) a machine relays the commands, an interface displays the target coordinates and then the human obeys.

xixi77 11y ago
Or, differently phrased, achieving political objectives that would have otherwise not been feasible. It is not obvious to me that a side relatively more tolerant to own casualties should enjoy the political advantage. Also, do we discount casualties that the intended targets would likely have inflicted, had they not been eliminated? In any case, this article is not about merits of drones per se, just about the self-targeting ones. So when you say that "an algorithm chooses the where" -- any reference for that?
- Phlarp 11y ago
  Here is a link where the Director of the CIA openly and proudly admits to killing people based on meta-data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdQiz0Vavmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdQiz0Vavmc Surely you don't think they have gymnasiums full of junior analysts trying to manually correlate phone call metadata? At some level an algorithm decides someone specific crosses the probability threshold for our definition of "terrorist" and it's all rubber stamps from there until the hellfire blows up a wedding[1], funeral[2] or hospital[3]. [1]: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into... [2]: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/drone-attacks-at-funerals-of-people-killed-in-drone-strikes/280821/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/dro... [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/world/asia/doctors-without-borders-says-it-is-leaving-kunduz-after-strike-on-hospital.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/world/asia/doctors-without...
  - xixi77 11y ago
    Well, IMO there is a big difference between humans looking at algorithm-provided evidence (even if it's often rubber-stamping), and drones acting on that evidence directly.
  - grkvlt 11y ago
    Yes, but your examples [1,2,3] are neither the desired, nor the likely outcome. In most cases, the correct (not nescessarily the best or morally right) target is eliminated. In fact, I suspect (and would be interested in data that could prove or disprove this) that the erroneous outcome types [1,2,3] you list are _less_ likely with drones and automated systems than with humans on the front line and the attendant stress and confusion implicit in that situation...
    - Phlarp 11y ago
      In [1] and [2] the "target" of the strike was eliminated and the dozen or so civilians that died in each are considered acceptable collateral damage. I suspect this is also the case for [3], however they are unlikely to own up to that publicly