5 ms·

Framing is key for how you think about these military technologies. You could frame this as the government making it possible to kill people in the dark automa

Framing is key for how you think about these military technologies. You could frame this as the government making it possible to kill people in the dark automatically or as another data input to a vast array of data sources used to make life/death decisions for high-value military targets. The technology has the potential to make sure we're getting the right people but almost certainly its use will be pushed too far. It has a utility and we should rightly be concerned that it doesn't get used outside of its limited intended application.

titzer 7y ago
Well you mentioned framing, but you aren't even a little worried that the US military continues to kill thousands of people by drone strike with total impunity across several undeclared war zones? This isn't a theoretical. This is going on now. This technology will be used to kill people with absolutely zero accountability. Maybe we should strive for a planet where extra-judicial killings are hyper-efficient isn't where we invest our best minds and our money. I reject the framing where we have to accept this.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Given that they're killing people, with zero accountability, would you prefer technology to help them do so more accurately, or not? Would you prefer less civilians as collateral damage, or more? Yes, I know, you'd prefer that they stop killing people. To do that, you have to either 1) persuade a large number of people to stop trying to kill Americans, 2) persuade America to get out of the Middle East and just let things happen over there however they're going to happen, or 3) persuade the powers that be that, even if we stay in the Middle East, killing people that want to kill us is not the most effective route to peace. And those are fine goals. But until you achieve one of those three, it isn't amiss that, when we're trying to kill someone, we do the best we can to actually kill one of the people that's trying to kill some of us, and not some random other person.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    It used to be hard to kill someone. You'd need a sniper team, or a strike force. You'd take out your target and anyone putting up a fight, including collateral damage. You'd run the risk your team would get killed. Today, you don't run those risks. The stakes are low. More people can be killed with less fuss, and little political fallout at home.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Fair point. There's Somebody's Law (I forget whose) that adding lanes to roads increases travel time, because traffic increases more than enough to compensate for the new lanes. This may have a similar effect - decreasing the per-kill collateral damage (or at least media attention) may result in even more killing.
      - ithkuil 7y ago
        Perhaps "Jevons paradox" was the name on the tip of your tongue?
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        No, but it's related. The one I was thinking of was specifically related to roads and highway traffic. But, for what I was trying to say on this topic, Jevon's paradox works, too.
        ithkuil 7y ago
        Braess' paradox is specific to roads, although IMHO it's caused by a different mechanics and IIRC only applies when a route is completely removed (or utterly crippled to achieve the same effect)
  - SahAssar 7y ago
    You're assuming that more data leads to better decisions. That only holds true if the data is analyzed correctly and one views it without much bias, and considering incomplete data previously was used to justify killings then I'm not sure more data will help. I'd also posit that expanding the US surveillance capabilities now to better the current situation might also lead to a worse future if we manage to fix the underlying problems you numbered.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  I agree with you in condemning the indiscriminate killing done by the US. Technology may make existing operations slightly less evil. If you look at the developments to the hellfire missile: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-know-about-americas-sword-blade-hellfire-missile-and-its-latest-target https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-kn... . You can see that it's now more accurate and less likely to cause collateral damage. The problem with the technology is that the more automated it gets, the more tempting and easy it is to use this technology liberally and frequently. I'm not against the inherent development of the technology. Only its application.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > Technology may make existing operations slightly less evil. Technology is enabling these operations.
    - dumbfoundded 7y ago
      Can technology be a tool of deescalation and an increase in precision? Do drone strikes prevent carpet bombing? I honestly don't know. We are in one of the most relatively peaceful times. The technology I worry about most is the hypersonic missiles.
      - jacobush 7y ago
        Nuclear tipped anything stealth is worrying. The Shvkal [0] torpedo also comes to mind. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
blunte 7y ago
Who defines a "high-value military target" though? If you look at the US "leadership", surely anyone who is reading HN still has enough mental capacity to worry about that kind of judicial power.
- csb6 7y ago
  Exactly. I think too many Americans assume that the U.S. government are the good guys and that they will always pick out bad guys to kill, ignoring the many ruthless the dictators and military coups the U.S. has backed in order to topple popular, democratically-elected governments around the world. What’s to stop the military from using it to commit terror and murder indiscriminately?
SahAssar 7y ago
"We kill people based on metadata" - General Michael Hayden Also this bit from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...: "Between 2009 and 2015, out of 473 strikes between 64–116 non-combatant deaths occurred. However during that period, the Obama Administration did count all military-age males in strike zones as combatants unless explicit intelligence exonerated them posthumously." I don't think I trust the US military to determine what a "high-value target" is based on their track record. I also don't think more data will help, since the one of the basic steps for understanding data is to understand how limited and/or detailed the dataset you are working with actually is. If they haven't clearly understood the dataset they are working with now, there is basically no chance that more data will help. There needs to be a culture shift, not just a refinement.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  Between 2003 and 2019, 183,535 – 206,107 civilians died in the Iraqi War / Occupation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...). The US is seen as responsible for about 1/3 of those. If drone strikes replace ground troops, they're an absolute godsend. If they supplement them, it's another tragedy. I'd love to live in a world where no one is killed and these sorts of body calculations aren't necessary but it's pretty clear we choose not to live in that world. As a result, technology can either be a tool to reduce violence by making it more precise and targeted or it can automate violence and make it cheap.
  - SahAssar 7y ago
    What do you envision a world where all wars are fought with drones or other robotics would look like? International wars are generally fought to either gain territory (which is only valuable if it's livable and people tend to live where it's livable) or resources (and people tend to live near or work near where there are resources). How would a robotic army not still lead to civilian casualties in this scenario? Wouldn't that just make it cheap (in the public opinion sense) for a larger economy to fight senseless wars? Besides that, think about how civil wars would be impacted. Think about how the recent genocides in darfur or kosovo would play out if they had access to current information tech and drones. I hope wars stay extremely expensive, both in the monetary sense and in the public opinion sense, of which one component is that the ones risking their lives are actually the citizens.

titzer 7y ago

Well you mentioned framing, but you aren't even a little worried that the US military continues to kill thousands of people by drone strike with total impunity across several undeclared war zones? This isn't a theoretical. This is going on now. This technology will be used to kill people with absolutely zero accountability. Maybe we should strive for a planet where extra-judicial killings are hyper-efficient isn't where we invest our best minds and our money. I reject the framing where we have to accept this.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Given that they're killing people, with zero accountability, would you prefer technology to help them do so more accurately, or not? Would you prefer less civilians as collateral damage, or more? Yes, I know, you'd prefer that they stop killing people. To do that, you have to either 1) persuade a large number of people to stop trying to kill Americans, 2) persuade America to get out of the Middle East and just let things happen over there however they're going to happen, or 3) persuade the powers that be that, even if we stay in the Middle East, killing people that want to kill us is not the most effective route to peace. And those are fine goals. But until you achieve one of those three, it isn't amiss that, when we're trying to kill someone, we do the best we can to actually kill one of the people that's trying to kill some of us, and not some random other person.
- jacobush 7y ago
  It used to be hard to kill someone. You'd need a sniper team, or a strike force. You'd take out your target and anyone putting up a fight, including collateral damage. You'd run the risk your team would get killed. Today, you don't run those risks. The stakes are low. More people can be killed with less fuss, and little political fallout at home.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Fair point. There's Somebody's Law (I forget whose) that adding lanes to roads increases travel time, because traffic increases more than enough to compensate for the new lanes. This may have a similar effect - decreasing the per-kill collateral damage (or at least media attention) may result in even more killing.
    - ithkuil 7y ago
      Perhaps "Jevons paradox" was the name on the tip of your tongue?
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        No, but it's related. The one I was thinking of was specifically related to roads and highway traffic. But, for what I was trying to say on this topic, Jevon's paradox works, too.
        ithkuil 7y ago
        Braess' paradox is specific to roads, although IMHO it's caused by a different mechanics and IIRC only applies when a route is completely removed (or utterly crippled to achieve the same effect)
- SahAssar 7y ago
  You're assuming that more data leads to better decisions. That only holds true if the data is analyzed correctly and one views it without much bias, and considering incomplete data previously was used to justify killings then I'm not sure more data will help. I'd also posit that expanding the US surveillance capabilities now to better the current situation might also lead to a worse future if we manage to fix the underlying problems you numbered.
dumbfoundded 7y ago
I agree with you in condemning the indiscriminate killing done by the US. Technology may make existing operations slightly less evil. If you look at the developments to the hellfire missile: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-know-about-americas-sword-blade-hellfire-missile-and-its-latest-target https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-kn... . You can see that it's now more accurate and less likely to cause collateral damage. The problem with the technology is that the more automated it gets, the more tempting and easy it is to use this technology liberally and frequently. I'm not against the inherent development of the technology. Only its application.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > Technology may make existing operations slightly less evil. Technology is enabling these operations.
  - dumbfoundded 7y ago
    Can technology be a tool of deescalation and an increase in precision? Do drone strikes prevent carpet bombing? I honestly don't know. We are in one of the most relatively peaceful times. The technology I worry about most is the hypersonic missiles.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Nuclear tipped anything stealth is worrying. The Shvkal [0] torpedo also comes to mind. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

blunte 7y ago

Who defines a "high-value military target" though? If you look at the US "leadership", surely anyone who is reading HN still has enough mental capacity to worry about that kind of judicial power.

csb6 7y ago
Exactly. I think too many Americans assume that the U.S. government are the good guys and that they will always pick out bad guys to kill, ignoring the many ruthless the dictators and military coups the U.S. has backed in order to topple popular, democratically-elected governments around the world. What’s to stop the military from using it to commit terror and murder indiscriminately?

SahAssar 7y ago

"We kill people based on metadata" - General Michael Hayden Also this bit from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...: "Between 2009 and 2015, out of 473 strikes between 64–116 non-combatant deaths occurred. However during that period, the Obama Administration did count all military-age males in strike zones as combatants unless explicit intelligence exonerated them posthumously." I don't think I trust the US military to determine what a "high-value target" is based on their track record. I also don't think more data will help, since the one of the basic steps for understanding data is to understand how limited and/or detailed the dataset you are working with actually is. If they haven't clearly understood the dataset they are working with now, there is basically no chance that more data will help. There needs to be a culture shift, not just a refinement.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
Between 2003 and 2019, 183,535 – 206,107 civilians died in the Iraqi War / Occupation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...). The US is seen as responsible for about 1/3 of those. If drone strikes replace ground troops, they're an absolute godsend. If they supplement them, it's another tragedy. I'd love to live in a world where no one is killed and these sorts of body calculations aren't necessary but it's pretty clear we choose not to live in that world. As a result, technology can either be a tool to reduce violence by making it more precise and targeted or it can automate violence and make it cheap.
- SahAssar 7y ago
  What do you envision a world where all wars are fought with drones or other robotics would look like? International wars are generally fought to either gain territory (which is only valuable if it's livable and people tend to live where it's livable) or resources (and people tend to live near or work near where there are resources). How would a robotic army not still lead to civilian casualties in this scenario? Wouldn't that just make it cheap (in the public opinion sense) for a larger economy to fight senseless wars? Besides that, think about how civil wars would be impacted. Think about how the recent genocides in darfur or kosovo would play out if they had access to current information tech and drones. I hope wars stay extremely expensive, both in the monetary sense and in the public opinion sense, of which one component is that the ones risking their lives are actually the citizens.