10 ms·

There is no justification for killing noncombatants, even if AI told you you could.

by malfist 3y ago

realPubkey 3y ago
[flagged]
- FourHand451 3y ago
  Could you say more?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- rany_ 3y ago
  Really? I guess they're just "following orders" from the AI then. What a shameful response, if Russia did this or if the roles were reversed you'd be appalled.
  - empath-nirvana 3y ago
    There are pretty clearly cases where non-combatant deaths in war are necessary -- for example if you are in a total war situation as in WWII. People can and do argue about the morality of the Tokyo firebombings and Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki where it was largely purely civilian populations in cities that were attacked, but I think it's _fairly_ non-controversial that in a total war that industrial sites and weapons manufacturing facilities and so on are valid targets in a war situation, and they are generally staffed by non-combatants. The rule in the geneva conventions is: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." Which encompasses quite a large category of non-combatants that are likely to be in the area of those "objects". edit: not making any kind of judgement or statement at all about this particular situation -- just clarifying in general the rules of war involving non-combatants.
    - xbar 3y ago
      So, if the AI kicks out your name, you're ok with that?
    - goethes_kind 3y ago
      That's all well and fine, except that is very much not the situation with Israel and Palestine. Quite the opposite. Israel has the Palestinians entirely cornered and that already for the past 76 years. They have always had the upper hand and could very easily have negotiated a reasonable peace deal. Heck, where they not racist ethnonationalist bigots they would have incorporated the Palestinians in Israel as happens in normal situations when one state decides to land grab another. If anything it is the Palestinians, you know the victims who are entirely cornered and helpless, who should use your argument to justify civilian causalities, but you would be completely horrified if were to write that.
      - medvezhenok 3y ago
        Yitzhak Rabin did try to negotiate a reasonable peace deal (with Arafat), and was assassinated because of it. Israel left the West Bank [mostly] alone and that's what allowed the territory to get taken over by Hamas (with some degree of popular support). I think what Israel is doing is bad; I also happen to think that putting the Palestinians in control of Israel+Palestine (which is what integrating them into Israel would do, since they form a numeric majority) would be much worse (because at least Israeli values align closer with western values than the Palestinian ones). So there are no real good options than a tentative ceasefire and everyone on edge again. It is reminiscent of the war on terror in Afghanistan, and I imagine the outcome will be similarly somber, and likely objectives probably won't be met.
        majikaja 3y ago
        >Israeli values align closer with western values https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/04/middleeast/jerusalem-christians-spitting-israel-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/04/middleeast/jerusalem-chri...
  - supposemaybe 3y ago
    When you look at the map of Gaza, it looks like the AI must have told them to bomb every single house that was still standing.
basil-rash 3y ago
Wild that this is still a controversial statement on HN, which is otherwise rather forward thinking.
hugodan 3y ago
There is no justification for killing.
- twojacobtwo 3y ago
  There are some justifications for killing. Like if you can save many lives by killing one. But in general, I agree with you.
  - hugodan 3y ago
    I disagree with you. There is no justification for death. 1) Where do you draw the line? 2) At what number does that one become two? 3) how long do you think until AI is justified to start killing those single digit persons? 4) What if that one person is you? (this is not that hard to imagine, suppose a fictitious near future where everyone that contributed to some extinction event is deemed killable: AI development, global warming, failed to do some recycling, etc).
    - medvezhenok 3y ago
      Presupposing infinite resources, there wouldn't be a justification for death per se - since there would always be a better, more humane option. The world, however, does not have infinite resources, so there is always a question of optimal allocation, which will involve questions of life and death too. (not talking about this conflict in particular, just making an abstract point)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > 1) Where do you draw the line? Well the line would be at when you are causing more deaths than you are saving. Would you rather a larger number of people die? > What if that one person is you? What if the people's lives that would be saved are you, and this number is much larger? That argument actually works in favor of the option that saves the most lives. There is no neutral decision here. If you choose to not save the much larger group of people, those people are dead. So your only choice is to pick which groups of people will die. My prefer is to minimize that amount to be as small as possible. But if you want that number to be larger, and to have more people die, that requires some explanation.
XorNot 3y ago
This is not what the article is about, and not what AI was being used for.
- rany_ 3y ago
  Read between the lines, they're trying to blame their AI for the civilian casualties.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
spuz 3y ago
The use of AI and the authorisation to kill civilians are unrelated parts of this story. Nowhere does it mention that the AI is being used to justify killing of civilians.
- rany_ 3y ago
  Yeah, because they need to spell out what they're trying to have you infer.

There is no justification for killing noncombatants, even if AI told you you could.

realPubkey 3y ago

[flagged]

FourHand451 3y ago
Could you say more?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rany_ 3y ago
Really? I guess they're just "following orders" from the AI then. What a shameful response, if Russia did this or if the roles were reversed you'd be appalled.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  There are pretty clearly cases where non-combatant deaths in war are necessary -- for example if you are in a total war situation as in WWII. People can and do argue about the morality of the Tokyo firebombings and Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki where it was largely purely civilian populations in cities that were attacked, but I think it's _fairly_ non-controversial that in a total war that industrial sites and weapons manufacturing facilities and so on are valid targets in a war situation, and they are generally staffed by non-combatants. The rule in the geneva conventions is: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." Which encompasses quite a large category of non-combatants that are likely to be in the area of those "objects". edit: not making any kind of judgement or statement at all about this particular situation -- just clarifying in general the rules of war involving non-combatants.
  - xbar 3y ago
    So, if the AI kicks out your name, you're ok with that?
  - goethes_kind 3y ago
    That's all well and fine, except that is very much not the situation with Israel and Palestine. Quite the opposite. Israel has the Palestinians entirely cornered and that already for the past 76 years. They have always had the upper hand and could very easily have negotiated a reasonable peace deal. Heck, where they not racist ethnonationalist bigots they would have incorporated the Palestinians in Israel as happens in normal situations when one state decides to land grab another. If anything it is the Palestinians, you know the victims who are entirely cornered and helpless, who should use your argument to justify civilian causalities, but you would be completely horrified if were to write that.
    - medvezhenok 3y ago
      Yitzhak Rabin did try to negotiate a reasonable peace deal (with Arafat), and was assassinated because of it. Israel left the West Bank [mostly] alone and that's what allowed the territory to get taken over by Hamas (with some degree of popular support). I think what Israel is doing is bad; I also happen to think that putting the Palestinians in control of Israel+Palestine (which is what integrating them into Israel would do, since they form a numeric majority) would be much worse (because at least Israeli values align closer with western values than the Palestinian ones). So there are no real good options than a tentative ceasefire and everyone on edge again. It is reminiscent of the war on terror in Afghanistan, and I imagine the outcome will be similarly somber, and likely objectives probably won't be met.
      - majikaja 3y ago
        >Israeli values align closer with western values https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/04/middleeast/jerusalem-christians-spitting-israel-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/04/middleeast/jerusalem-chri...
- supposemaybe 3y ago
  When you look at the map of Gaza, it looks like the AI must have told them to bomb every single house that was still standing.

basil-rash 3y ago

Wild that this is still a controversial statement on HN, which is otherwise rather forward thinking.

hugodan 3y ago

There is no justification for killing.

twojacobtwo 3y ago
There are some justifications for killing. Like if you can save many lives by killing one. But in general, I agree with you.
- hugodan 3y ago
  I disagree with you. There is no justification for death. 1) Where do you draw the line? 2) At what number does that one become two? 3) how long do you think until AI is justified to start killing those single digit persons? 4) What if that one person is you? (this is not that hard to imagine, suppose a fictitious near future where everyone that contributed to some extinction event is deemed killable: AI development, global warming, failed to do some recycling, etc).
  - medvezhenok 3y ago
    Presupposing infinite resources, there wouldn't be a justification for death per se - since there would always be a better, more humane option. The world, however, does not have infinite resources, so there is always a question of optimal allocation, which will involve questions of life and death too. (not talking about this conflict in particular, just making an abstract point)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > 1) Where do you draw the line? Well the line would be at when you are causing more deaths than you are saving. Would you rather a larger number of people die? > What if that one person is you? What if the people's lives that would be saved are you, and this number is much larger? That argument actually works in favor of the option that saves the most lives. There is no neutral decision here. If you choose to not save the much larger group of people, those people are dead. So your only choice is to pick which groups of people will die. My prefer is to minimize that amount to be as small as possible. But if you want that number to be larger, and to have more people die, that requires some explanation.

XorNot 3y ago

This is not what the article is about, and not what AI was being used for.

rany_ 3y ago
Read between the lines, they're trying to blame their AI for the civilian casualties.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

spuz 3y ago

The use of AI and the authorisation to kill civilians are unrelated parts of this story. Nowhere does it mention that the AI is being used to justify killing of civilians.

rany_ 3y ago
Yeah, because they need to spell out what they're trying to have you infer.