35 ms·

Years ago, scholars (such as Didier Bigo) have already raised concerns about the targeting of individuals merely based on (indirect) association with a "terrori

Years ago, scholars (such as Didier Bigo) have already raised concerns about the targeting of individuals merely based on (indirect) association with a "terrorist" or "criminal". Originally used in the context of surveillance (see Snowden revelations), such systems would target anyone who would be e.g. less than 3-steps away from an identified individual, thereby removing any sense of due process or targeted surveillance. Now, such AI systems are being used to actually kill people - instead of just surveil. IHL actually prohibits the killing of persons who are not combatants or "fighters" of an armed group. Only those who have the "continuous function" to "directly participate in hostilities"[1] may be targeted for attack at any time. Everyone else is a civilian that can only be directly targeted when and for as long as they directly participate in hostilities, such as by taking up arms, planning military operations, laying down mines, etc. That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers, propagandists, financiers, …) can be targeted for attack - all the others must be arrested and/or tried. Otherwise, the allowed list of targets of civilians gets so wide than in any regular war, pretty much any civilian could get targeted, such as the bank employee whose company has provided loans to the armed forces. Lavender is so scary because it enables Israel's mass targeting of people who are protected against attack by international law, providing a flimsy (political but not legal) justification for their association with terrorists. [1]: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990...

kjkjadksj 2y ago
[flagged]
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Ai flagging targets sure beats the cold impunity of the strategic air campaign during wwii and vietnam by far. Only on a single iteration of a Nash game. If it tempts the politicians and generals to target larger areas because of the lower costs… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
CommieBobDole 2y ago
It's also interesting (and I guess typical for end-users of software) how quickly and easily something like this goes from "Here's a tool you can use as an information input when deciding who to target" to "I dunno, computer says these are the people we need to kill, let's get to it". In the Guardian article, an IDF spokesperson says it exists and is only used as the former, and I'm sure that's what was intended and maybe even what the higher-ups think, but I suspect it's become the latter.
- pixl97 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- solarpunk 2y ago
  20 second turnaround from target acquisition to strikes seems to guarantee it's become the latter.
  - hluska 2y ago
    Do you have enough military experience to say this? Or are you just guessing? I’ll guarantee that it’s the latter.
    - JohnKemeny 2y ago
      I'm guessing the point they're making is that there's no human in the loop, which can confidently be claimed, even without military experience.
      - londons_explore 2y ago
        I'd bet there is a human in the loop, but the human isn't informed. Ie. "Your job is to press this button whenever that red light comes on".
snird 2y ago
[flagged]
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  This is demonstrably untrue (it happens of course, but is not ubiquitous as comabt footage demonstrates) and in any case does not obviate the LOAC.
- _a_a_a_ 2y ago
  > It is very convenient to criticize it when you're not in it Israel 'criticised' Hamas for their monstrous attack six months ago, started a war over it. Perhaps you're saying Israel should have just accepted it? You know, perhaps this whole mess Israel is now involved in is a product of its own behaviour, and killing of loads more Palestinians is not likely to bring peace but further hate and evil.
  - _a_a_a_ 2y ago
    3 downvotes in 16 minutes, well I never! (but oddly no other response)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Because you're arguing against a totemic representation with rhetoric rather than helpful points. Also, weirdly, looks like you're arguing against both sides' totemic representations in this way, so you're going to annoy everyone.
      - _a_a_a_ 2y ago
        I found that putting solid facts in front of Israeli supporters just got me downvotes. Anyway >> It is very convenient to criticize it when you're not in it > Israel 'criticised' Hamas for their monstrous attack six months ago, started a war over it. Perhaps you're saying Israel should have just accepted it? That is not rhetoric but a straightforward question.
pvaldes 2y ago
If they can target "terrorist", unavoidably the system will be upgraded to target "politician" also.
- megous 2y ago
  It was upgraded to target politician's families, already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Haniyeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Haniyeh Always interesting to me how western diplomats do not just right out reject bombing of diplomatic buildings, but search for stupid justifications, if it's "others" being bombed and not their team. Or politicians who don't reject targeting of other politicians' families for killing, when it's the politicians they "don't like" or whatever, and even tacitly support it. Or who don't say a word when a hospital is attacked and hundreds of people murdered in it over several weeks, and ultimately destroyed, but blab something about right to self-defence constantly, or IHL which according to legal experts is used mostly to enable mass murder, not to stop it. Kinda paradoxical for a law that was meant to prevent needless suffering. It's like all these people have a death wish, because they're setting standards for future wars. And there will be future wars, even in Europe. Anyway, I lost all respect for all the idiot politicians I sadly voted for, who justify day and night the murder of medics, whole families, children, starvation, etc., when it's "the other", and are all up in arms when it's "us". I certainly won't be fighting for any of them, when the war comes here. They have 0 standards. I'll let them die according to their wishes and standards.
surfingdino 2y ago
It always starts with making a list of targets that meet given criteria. Once you have the list its use changes from categorisation to demonisation -> surveillance -> denial of rights -> deportations -> killing. Early use of computers by Germans during WW2 included making and processing of lists of people who ought to be sent to concentration camps. The only difference today is that we are able to capture more data and process it faster at scale.
- Qem 2y ago
  There's even books written about it. Shame on IBM for this. I suspect in the future we'll have lots of books like this, for other companies enabling this genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
  - imjonse 2y ago
    The same author wrote Nazi Nexus, with separate chapters for different US companies' (Ford, GM) dealings with the Nazi regime. It can always be a case of "let's not bring politics into work" attitude or the belief that "tech is a tool only, can be used for good or ill" but at least in the years leading up to WW2 there was a lot of support for eugenics, antisemitism (Henry Ford was a notorious one) and other Nazi tendencies in the US too. I would not be surprised if many of those working on killer AI today were politically motivated and not just developers caught in projects they don't really have their hearts in.
    - Sleepful 2y ago
      Operation Paperclip et al
      - GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
        Don't forget Japanese Unit 731, all the scientists involved were whisked away to the US if they would give up their research on human subjects to the US military and help translate.
bawolff 2y ago
> That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers,.. I think the loop-hole here is that a weapon manufacturing facility is almost certainly a military strategic target, and international law allows you to target the infrastructure provided the military advantage gained is porportional to the civilian death. So you can't target the individuals but according to international law its fine to target the building they are in while the individuals are still inside provided its militarily worth it.
- klipt 2y ago
  But presumably if you can target the building e.g. at night when nobody is there, that's preferable to targeting it during the day when there may be more civilian workers.
  - Quanttek 2y ago
    Exactly! The key difference is that the worker still count as civilians in the calculus that considers whether an attack is proportional (anticipated military advantage vs expected civilian effects) and whether the attacker took all feasible precautions to avoid and minimize civilian loss, including attacking at night, using tailored weaponry, giving a warning, …
shmatt 2y ago
Gitmo is still open, if the US isnt participating in those laws, I don't see how any of its allies are expected to
throwaway7351 2y ago
By the standards discussed in the article, anyone with a beef with Israel could justify targeting possible a majority of buildings in Israel. After all, most of the population is required to serve in the IDF.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Both Hamas and Hezbollah are routinely doing exactly that.
  - throwaway331337 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - oa335 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - throwaway331337 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - datascienced 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - throwaway7351 2y ago
    Are they trying to legally or morally justify those attacks? Last year I would have said that Israel was reasonably well behaved and Hezbollah and Hamas’s rockets fired into Israel were utterly unjustifiable terrorism and served no valid military purpose. It seems like Israel is busily lowering itself it to its enemies’ level, and it’s not particularly clear that its attacks serve a legitimate military purpose to a much greater extent than Hamas and Hezbollah’s. Compare to the US’s war in Afghanistan. Regardless of whether one believes that the war was a good idea or we’ll executed, at least the US seemed to be trying to make Afghanistan livable for its non-militant residents, and they perhaps even succeeded for a while.
rdtsc 2y ago
> Everyone else is a civilian that can only be directly targeted when and for as long as they directly participate in hostilities, such as by taking up arms, planning military operations, laying down mines, etc. There is some incredible magic that often happens: as soon as anyone is targeted and killed, they immediately transform from civilians to "collaborators", "terrorists", "militants" etc. Of course everything is classified and restricted to avoid anyone snooping around and asking questions.
- skinkestek 2y ago
  In Norway it is rather the other way: We all know (if we stop and think) that a person can be both a teacher and a terrorist. But according to media here almost every victim except top Hamas brass seems to be referred to by their whatever else they were besides terrorists and the terrorists (or even just soldier) part get hushed down.
  - notsafetocomm 2y ago
    Maybe it's because the overwhelming majority of the people being killed are actually just regular people?
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      That’s always the case. At 2:1 civilians to combatants, this is an unusually low civilian death count.
      - lukan 2y ago
        Well, depends how exactly you classify people as "combatant". https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-ma...
      - Gabriel54 2y ago
        Trying my best to assume this comment in good faith... Low compared to what? For reference, in the recent war in Ukraine (post 2022), there have been approximately 11,000 Ukrainian civilians killed and approximately 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...
jibe 2y ago
That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers, propagandists, financiers, …) can be targeted for attack It seems wrong that you can't target weapon manufacturers, can you cite a source? Weapon manufacturers contribute to the military action, and destroying weapon manufacturers contributes to military advantage.
- nickff 2y ago
  This is a very 'anti-war' opinion by a lawyer affiliated with the Red Cross, not some sort of treaty or other convention. As an example, the Geneva Convention's scope of protection is much narrower.
  - Quanttek 2y ago
    While the DPH Guidance has it's controversial parts (Rec IX), the guidance on interpreting "directly participating in hostilities" is quite authoritative. And that should be emphasized: the Geneva Conventions allow the targeting of military objectives, combatants (i.e. members of armed forces) and "civilians directly participating in hostilities". The Guidance just interprets the latter and arguably widens the scope, because - without the invention of "continuous combatant function" - you could attack e.g. members of Hamas' armed wing during an attack and in preparation of one. Now you can attack them at any time.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Em. From the foreword: > First, the interpretive Guidance is an expression solely of the ICRC's views. While international humanitarian law relating to the notion of direct participation in hostilities was examined over several years with a group of eminent legal experts, to whom the ICRC owes a huge debt of gratitude, the positions enunciated are the ICRC's alone. Second, while reflecting the ICRC's views, the interpretive Guidance is not and cannot be a text of a legally binding nature. The purpose and of the Interpretive Guidance is to provide recommendations, as the document itself states, in an attempt to persuade states. It does not claim to be authoritative.
_blk 2y ago
[flagged]
- smashah 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - _blk 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - smashah 2y ago
      [flagged]
- Comma2976 2y ago
  >civilians as shields For as much as the IOF likes to market this expression, I only ever see them do it in the actual sense, like chaining literal 12 year-olds to the front of armored vehicles https://www.btselem.org/ota/104/all https://www.btselem.org/ota/104/all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Use_by_Israeli_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E...
throwawaymanbot 2y ago
[dead]
mschuster91 2y ago
> Only those who have the "continuous function" to "directly participate in hostilities"[1] may be targeted for attack at any time. The problem with Hamas is that they don't shy away from hiding combattants in civilian clothings or use women and children as suicide bombers. There is more than enough evidence of this tactic, dating back many many years [1]. By not just not preventing, but actively ordering such war crimes, Hamas leadership has stripped its civilian population of the protections of international law. > Otherwise, the allowed list of targets of civilians gets so wide than in any regular war, pretty much any civilian could get targeted, such as the bank employee whose company has provided loans to the armed forces. In regular wars, it's uniformed soldiers against uniformed soldiers, away from civilian infrastructure (hospitals, schools, residential areas). The rules of war make deviating from that a war crime on its own, simply because it places the other party in the conflict of either having no chance to wage the war or to commit war crimes on their own. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_b...
- colordrops 2y ago
  > Hamas leadership has stripped its civilian population of the protections of international law. You completely lose any credibility with this statement. Civilians can't be "stripped" of protections of international law.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    Oh yes they can, that question has been settled in the aftermath of the Yugoslavian Wars [1, page 148]: > 46. The law is thus clear: a hospital becomes a legitimate target when used for hostile or harmful acts unrelated to its humanitarian function, but the opposing party must give warning before it attacks [1] https://www.icty.org/x/cases/galic/acjug/en/gal-acjud061130.pdf https://www.icty.org/x/cases/galic/acjug/en/gal-acjud061130....
    - Quanttek 2y ago
      That has nothing to do with your original statement. Yes, hospital can lose their special protection but must then be given a warning that gives them enough time to evacuate and only if that warning is unheeded, it loses special protection. But all the other rules protecting civilians still apply (distinction, proportionality, precautions, …). In any case, this has nothing to do with the whole civilian population being stripped of their protections. They still have their human rights and cannot be targeted.
firejake308 2y ago
Practical AI did a podcast episode about the dangers of using AI models as a shield to hide behind in justifying your decisions. The episode was titled "Suspicion Machines" and based on the libked article [1], and I think it's worth a read/listen. [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/welfare-state-algorithms/ https://www.wired.com/story/welfare-state-algorithms/
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  It's also an incentive to use it - accountability evasion.
tootie 2y ago
That's not exactly a prediction. It was was standard operating procedure for Warsaw Pact nations. They used human intel which was possibly even worse because it could manipulated out of malice.
abtinf 2y ago
It would be difficult to deliberately design a set of rules that would prolong war and human suffering even longer than what you’ve described.
logro 2y ago
So if you're just an 9-5 office based terrorist doing admin stuff, you're off limits?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bjourne 2y ago
  Yes, if you think about actions rather than labels it makes sense. Otherwise every office worker in Israel would be a legitimate target too.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  As a target for assassination? Yeah. It makes sense. Blowing up a military HQ with a clerk in it makes sense. Blowing up a clerk walking on the sidewalk seems like a wasted effort. You can come up with all sorts of justifications for anything. At the end of the day, time and time again, over the top escalation usually hurts the stronger party. Asymmetrical warfare doesn’t garner sympathy or military advantages to the stronger party.
BLKNSLVR 2y ago
This happens in wartime: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-03/world-central-kitchen-blast-australian-dead-netanyahu-reacts/103660170 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-03/world-central-kitchen... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-02/israeli-strike-that-killed-australian-aid-worker-in-gaza/103660392 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-02/israeli-strike-that-k... Pretty disgraceful (which itself feels a disgracefully unimpactful thing to say regarding people losing their lives whilst doing charity work).
2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
[flagged]
usaar333 2y ago
I don't understand your point here. They are targeting militants with the system: > Formally, the Lavender system is designed to mark by all suspected operatives in the military wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), including low-ranking ones, as potential bombing targets. Obviously any judgement is probabilistic.
MichaelMoser123 2y ago
[flagged]
- darkerside 2y ago
  Is this meant to excuse the behavior of the Israeli military?
  - MichaelMoser123 2y ago
    no, it's a reminder that there is more than one side to the story.
    - MichaelMoser123 2y ago
      also I am fed up with this tendentious 'discussion' that only allows you to hear one side of the story and where everyone else is just flagged off. I should rather stay away from HN (anyway it is no longer what it used to be) Sayonara.
      - darkerside 2y ago
        I didn't flag you, but I did think your comment felt like whataboutism. That's an accusation I've had leveled at me in the past, so I know how it feels and don't say it lightly, and I don't mean it in an accusing way. At the end of the day, most arguments are not about factual disagreements. They are about, what is the most important consideration right now? And I would posit that the most important consideration right now is that we have automated killing that may rise to the level of what will someday be categorized as a war crime. There are other tremendously important topics, like how have both Israelis and Palestinians suffered since the formation of the country, should there's be a ceasefire and/or a hostage release on both/either side, and many more incredibly important things. We can't discuss them all at once, and I believe considering the impact of AI on warfare at scale needs a place to be discussed with as little distraction as possible.
ghufran_syed 2y ago
[flagged]
- stephen_g 2y ago
  There seems to be little evidence to your statement “Israel seems to trying much harder to avoid civilian casualties than […]”. All estimates I have seen seem to indicate astonishing rates of civilian casualties, hence why Israel is getting so much criticism of basically indiscriminate killing in Gaza…
- SZJX 2y ago
  Even though you may not be necessarily wrong on how little regard those armies in those previous wars (and indeed all warring parties in those wars to some extent) had for the civilian population, the situation is Gaza is made so much more drastic because there’s already nowhere for the (already displaced for decades) population to go amid all this assault and bombing (not to mention the widespread starving and all those other factors, which combined led to the “genocide” claim levied by some). That’s also a reason why all western countries are trying to dissuade Israel from the Rafat assault. Also, we have the idea that human beings are supposed to learn from those previous tragedies and do better, and that we’re in a much more civilized, peaceful and prosperous place than before, so it’s likely a disillusion and horror for a lot of people to see such a nightmarish scenario unfolding again in 2023. Some intrinsic parts about human nature and human societies will never change unfortunately.
- cad31 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - elygre 2y ago
    20 seconds "to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male". And then "for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians".
sgjohnson 2y ago
> That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers, propagandists, financiers, …) can be targeted for attack - all the others must be arrested and/or tried. In theory, yes. In practice--in which make believe world is this true?
graymatters 2y ago
Dresden rules should be applied to Gaza. Israel is way too considerate with Lavender. Every other house in Gaza is full of weapons.

kjkjadksj 2y ago

[flagged]

ben_w 2y ago
> Ai flagging targets sure beats the cold impunity of the strategic air campaign during wwii and vietnam by far. Only on a single iteration of a Nash game. If it tempts the politicians and generals to target larger areas because of the lower costs… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

CommieBobDole 2y ago

It's also interesting (and I guess typical for end-users of software) how quickly and easily something like this goes from "Here's a tool you can use as an information input when deciding who to target" to "I dunno, computer says these are the people we need to kill, let's get to it". In the Guardian article, an IDF spokesperson says it exists and is only used as the former, and I'm sure that's what was intended and maybe even what the higher-ups think, but I suspect it's become the latter.

pixl97 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
solarpunk 2y ago
20 second turnaround from target acquisition to strikes seems to guarantee it's become the latter.
- hluska 2y ago
  Do you have enough military experience to say this? Or are you just guessing? I’ll guarantee that it’s the latter.
  - JohnKemeny 2y ago
    I'm guessing the point they're making is that there's no human in the loop, which can confidently be claimed, even without military experience.
    - londons_explore 2y ago
      I'd bet there is a human in the loop, but the human isn't informed. Ie. "Your job is to press this button whenever that red light comes on".

snird 2y ago

[flagged]

anigbrowl 2y ago
This is demonstrably untrue (it happens of course, but is not ubiquitous as comabt footage demonstrates) and in any case does not obviate the LOAC.
_a_a_a_ 2y ago
> It is very convenient to criticize it when you're not in it Israel 'criticised' Hamas for their monstrous attack six months ago, started a war over it. Perhaps you're saying Israel should have just accepted it? You know, perhaps this whole mess Israel is now involved in is a product of its own behaviour, and killing of loads more Palestinians is not likely to bring peace but further hate and evil.
- _a_a_a_ 2y ago
  3 downvotes in 16 minutes, well I never! (but oddly no other response)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Because you're arguing against a totemic representation with rhetoric rather than helpful points. Also, weirdly, looks like you're arguing against both sides' totemic representations in this way, so you're going to annoy everyone.
    - _a_a_a_ 2y ago
      I found that putting solid facts in front of Israeli supporters just got me downvotes. Anyway >> It is very convenient to criticize it when you're not in it > Israel 'criticised' Hamas for their monstrous attack six months ago, started a war over it. Perhaps you're saying Israel should have just accepted it? That is not rhetoric but a straightforward question.

pvaldes 2y ago

If they can target "terrorist", unavoidably the system will be upgraded to target "politician" also.

megous 2y ago
It was upgraded to target politician's families, already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Haniyeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Haniyeh Always interesting to me how western diplomats do not just right out reject bombing of diplomatic buildings, but search for stupid justifications, if it's "others" being bombed and not their team. Or politicians who don't reject targeting of other politicians' families for killing, when it's the politicians they "don't like" or whatever, and even tacitly support it. Or who don't say a word when a hospital is attacked and hundreds of people murdered in it over several weeks, and ultimately destroyed, but blab something about right to self-defence constantly, or IHL which according to legal experts is used mostly to enable mass murder, not to stop it. Kinda paradoxical for a law that was meant to prevent needless suffering. It's like all these people have a death wish, because they're setting standards for future wars. And there will be future wars, even in Europe. Anyway, I lost all respect for all the idiot politicians I sadly voted for, who justify day and night the murder of medics, whole families, children, starvation, etc., when it's "the other", and are all up in arms when it's "us". I certainly won't be fighting for any of them, when the war comes here. They have 0 standards. I'll let them die according to their wishes and standards.

surfingdino 2y ago

It always starts with making a list of targets that meet given criteria. Once you have the list its use changes from categorisation to demonisation -> surveillance -> denial of rights -> deportations -> killing. Early use of computers by Germans during WW2 included making and processing of lists of people who ought to be sent to concentration camps. The only difference today is that we are able to capture more data and process it faster at scale.

Qem 2y ago
There's even books written about it. Shame on IBM for this. I suspect in the future we'll have lots of books like this, for other companies enabling this genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
- imjonse 2y ago
  The same author wrote Nazi Nexus, with separate chapters for different US companies' (Ford, GM) dealings with the Nazi regime. It can always be a case of "let's not bring politics into work" attitude or the belief that "tech is a tool only, can be used for good or ill" but at least in the years leading up to WW2 there was a lot of support for eugenics, antisemitism (Henry Ford was a notorious one) and other Nazi tendencies in the US too. I would not be surprised if many of those working on killer AI today were politically motivated and not just developers caught in projects they don't really have their hearts in.
  - Sleepful 2y ago
    Operation Paperclip et al
    - GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
      Don't forget Japanese Unit 731, all the scientists involved were whisked away to the US if they would give up their research on human subjects to the US military and help translate.

bawolff 2y ago

> That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers,.. I think the loop-hole here is that a weapon manufacturing facility is almost certainly a military strategic target, and international law allows you to target the infrastructure provided the military advantage gained is porportional to the civilian death. So you can't target the individuals but according to international law its fine to target the building they are in while the individuals are still inside provided its militarily worth it.

klipt 2y ago
But presumably if you can target the building e.g. at night when nobody is there, that's preferable to targeting it during the day when there may be more civilian workers.
- Quanttek 2y ago
  Exactly! The key difference is that the worker still count as civilians in the calculus that considers whether an attack is proportional (anticipated military advantage vs expected civilian effects) and whether the attacker took all feasible precautions to avoid and minimize civilian loss, including attacking at night, using tailored weaponry, giving a warning, …

shmatt 2y ago

Gitmo is still open, if the US isnt participating in those laws, I don't see how any of its allies are expected to

throwaway7351 2y ago

By the standards discussed in the article, anyone with a beef with Israel could justify targeting possible a majority of buildings in Israel. After all, most of the population is required to serve in the IDF.

BurningFrog 2y ago
Both Hamas and Hezbollah are routinely doing exactly that.
- throwaway331337 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - oa335 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throwaway331337 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - datascienced 2y ago
    [flagged]
- throwaway7351 2y ago
  Are they trying to legally or morally justify those attacks? Last year I would have said that Israel was reasonably well behaved and Hezbollah and Hamas’s rockets fired into Israel were utterly unjustifiable terrorism and served no valid military purpose. It seems like Israel is busily lowering itself it to its enemies’ level, and it’s not particularly clear that its attacks serve a legitimate military purpose to a much greater extent than Hamas and Hezbollah’s. Compare to the US’s war in Afghanistan. Regardless of whether one believes that the war was a good idea or we’ll executed, at least the US seemed to be trying to make Afghanistan livable for its non-militant residents, and they perhaps even succeeded for a while.

rdtsc 2y ago

> Everyone else is a civilian that can only be directly targeted when and for as long as they directly participate in hostilities, such as by taking up arms, planning military operations, laying down mines, etc. There is some incredible magic that often happens: as soon as anyone is targeted and killed, they immediately transform from civilians to "collaborators", "terrorists", "militants" etc. Of course everything is classified and restricted to avoid anyone snooping around and asking questions.

skinkestek 2y ago
In Norway it is rather the other way: We all know (if we stop and think) that a person can be both a teacher and a terrorist. But according to media here almost every victim except top Hamas brass seems to be referred to by their whatever else they were besides terrorists and the terrorists (or even just soldier) part get hushed down.
- notsafetocomm 2y ago
  Maybe it's because the overwhelming majority of the people being killed are actually just regular people?
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    That’s always the case. At 2:1 civilians to combatants, this is an unusually low civilian death count.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Well, depends how exactly you classify people as "combatant". https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-ma...
    - Gabriel54 2y ago
      Trying my best to assume this comment in good faith... Low compared to what? For reference, in the recent war in Ukraine (post 2022), there have been approximately 11,000 Ukrainian civilians killed and approximately 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...

jibe 2y ago

That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers, propagandists, financiers, …) can be targeted for attack It seems wrong that you can't target weapon manufacturers, can you cite a source? Weapon manufacturers contribute to the military action, and destroying weapon manufacturers contributes to military advantage.

nickff 2y ago
This is a very 'anti-war' opinion by a lawyer affiliated with the Red Cross, not some sort of treaty or other convention. As an example, the Geneva Convention's scope of protection is much narrower.
- Quanttek 2y ago
  While the DPH Guidance has it's controversial parts (Rec IX), the guidance on interpreting "directly participating in hostilities" is quite authoritative. And that should be emphasized: the Geneva Conventions allow the targeting of military objectives, combatants (i.e. members of armed forces) and "civilians directly participating in hostilities". The Guidance just interprets the latter and arguably widens the scope, because - without the invention of "continuous combatant function" - you could attack e.g. members of Hamas' armed wing during an attack and in preparation of one. Now you can attack them at any time.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Em. From the foreword: > First, the interpretive Guidance is an expression solely of the ICRC's views. While international humanitarian law relating to the notion of direct participation in hostilities was examined over several years with a group of eminent legal experts, to whom the ICRC owes a huge debt of gratitude, the positions enunciated are the ICRC's alone. Second, while reflecting the ICRC's views, the interpretive Guidance is not and cannot be a text of a legally binding nature. The purpose and of the Interpretive Guidance is to provide recommendations, as the document itself states, in an attempt to persuade states. It does not claim to be authoritative.

_blk 2y ago

[flagged]

smashah 2y ago
[flagged]
- _blk 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - smashah 2y ago
    [flagged]
Comma2976 2y ago
>civilians as shields For as much as the IOF likes to market this expression, I only ever see them do it in the actual sense, like chaining literal 12 year-olds to the front of armored vehicles https://www.btselem.org/ota/104/all https://www.btselem.org/ota/104/all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Use_by_Israeli_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E...

throwawaymanbot 2y ago

[dead]

mschuster91 2y ago

> Only those who have the "continuous function" to "directly participate in hostilities"[1] may be targeted for attack at any time. The problem with Hamas is that they don't shy away from hiding combattants in civilian clothings or use women and children as suicide bombers. There is more than enough evidence of this tactic, dating back many many years [1]. By not just not preventing, but actively ordering such war crimes, Hamas leadership has stripped its civilian population of the protections of international law. > Otherwise, the allowed list of targets of civilians gets so wide than in any regular war, pretty much any civilian could get targeted, such as the bank employee whose company has provided loans to the armed forces. In regular wars, it's uniformed soldiers against uniformed soldiers, away from civilian infrastructure (hospitals, schools, residential areas). The rules of war make deviating from that a war crime on its own, simply because it places the other party in the conflict of either having no chance to wage the war or to commit war crimes on their own. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_b...

colordrops 2y ago
> Hamas leadership has stripped its civilian population of the protections of international law. You completely lose any credibility with this statement. Civilians can't be "stripped" of protections of international law.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  Oh yes they can, that question has been settled in the aftermath of the Yugoslavian Wars [1, page 148]: > 46. The law is thus clear: a hospital becomes a legitimate target when used for hostile or harmful acts unrelated to its humanitarian function, but the opposing party must give warning before it attacks [1] https://www.icty.org/x/cases/galic/acjug/en/gal-acjud061130.pdf https://www.icty.org/x/cases/galic/acjug/en/gal-acjud061130....
  - Quanttek 2y ago
    That has nothing to do with your original statement. Yes, hospital can lose their special protection but must then be given a warning that gives them enough time to evacuate and only if that warning is unheeded, it loses special protection. But all the other rules protecting civilians still apply (distinction, proportionality, precautions, …). In any case, this has nothing to do with the whole civilian population being stripped of their protections. They still have their human rights and cannot be targeted.

firejake308 2y ago

Practical AI did a podcast episode about the dangers of using AI models as a shield to hide behind in justifying your decisions. The episode was titled "Suspicion Machines" and based on the libked article [1], and I think it's worth a read/listen. [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/welfare-state-algorithms/ https://www.wired.com/story/welfare-state-algorithms/

wahnfrieden 2y ago
It's also an incentive to use it - accountability evasion.

tootie 2y ago

That's not exactly a prediction. It was was standard operating procedure for Warsaw Pact nations. They used human intel which was possibly even worse because it could manipulated out of malice.

abtinf 2y ago

It would be difficult to deliberately design a set of rules that would prolong war and human suffering even longer than what you’ve described.

logro 2y ago

So if you're just an 9-5 office based terrorist doing admin stuff, you're off limits?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bjourne 2y ago
Yes, if you think about actions rather than labels it makes sense. Otherwise every office worker in Israel would be a legitimate target too.
Spooky23 2y ago
As a target for assassination? Yeah. It makes sense. Blowing up a military HQ with a clerk in it makes sense. Blowing up a clerk walking on the sidewalk seems like a wasted effort. You can come up with all sorts of justifications for anything. At the end of the day, time and time again, over the top escalation usually hurts the stronger party. Asymmetrical warfare doesn’t garner sympathy or military advantages to the stronger party.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

This happens in wartime: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-03/world-central-kitchen-blast-australian-dead-netanyahu-reacts/103660170 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-03/world-central-kitchen... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-02/israeli-strike-that-killed-australian-aid-worker-in-gaza/103660392 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-02/israeli-strike-that-k... Pretty disgraceful (which itself feels a disgracefully unimpactful thing to say regarding people losing their lives whilst doing charity work).

2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago

[flagged]

usaar333 2y ago

I don't understand your point here. They are targeting militants with the system: > Formally, the Lavender system is designed to mark by all suspected operatives in the military wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), including low-ranking ones, as potential bombing targets. Obviously any judgement is probabilistic.

MichaelMoser123 2y ago

[flagged]

darkerside 2y ago
Is this meant to excuse the behavior of the Israeli military?
- MichaelMoser123 2y ago
  no, it's a reminder that there is more than one side to the story.
  - MichaelMoser123 2y ago
    also I am fed up with this tendentious 'discussion' that only allows you to hear one side of the story and where everyone else is just flagged off. I should rather stay away from HN (anyway it is no longer what it used to be) Sayonara.
    - darkerside 2y ago
      I didn't flag you, but I did think your comment felt like whataboutism. That's an accusation I've had leveled at me in the past, so I know how it feels and don't say it lightly, and I don't mean it in an accusing way. At the end of the day, most arguments are not about factual disagreements. They are about, what is the most important consideration right now? And I would posit that the most important consideration right now is that we have automated killing that may rise to the level of what will someday be categorized as a war crime. There are other tremendously important topics, like how have both Israelis and Palestinians suffered since the formation of the country, should there's be a ceasefire and/or a hostage release on both/either side, and many more incredibly important things. We can't discuss them all at once, and I believe considering the impact of AI on warfare at scale needs a place to be discussed with as little distraction as possible.

ghufran_syed 2y ago

[flagged]

stephen_g 2y ago
There seems to be little evidence to your statement “Israel seems to trying much harder to avoid civilian casualties than […]”. All estimates I have seen seem to indicate astonishing rates of civilian casualties, hence why Israel is getting so much criticism of basically indiscriminate killing in Gaza…
SZJX 2y ago
Even though you may not be necessarily wrong on how little regard those armies in those previous wars (and indeed all warring parties in those wars to some extent) had for the civilian population, the situation is Gaza is made so much more drastic because there’s already nowhere for the (already displaced for decades) population to go amid all this assault and bombing (not to mention the widespread starving and all those other factors, which combined led to the “genocide” claim levied by some). That’s also a reason why all western countries are trying to dissuade Israel from the Rafat assault. Also, we have the idea that human beings are supposed to learn from those previous tragedies and do better, and that we’re in a much more civilized, peaceful and prosperous place than before, so it’s likely a disillusion and horror for a lot of people to see such a nightmarish scenario unfolding again in 2023. Some intrinsic parts about human nature and human societies will never change unfortunately.
cad31 2y ago
[flagged]
- elygre 2y ago
  20 seconds "to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male". And then "for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians".

sgjohnson 2y ago

> That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers, propagandists, financiers, …) can be targeted for attack - all the others must be arrested and/or tried. In theory, yes. In practice--in which make believe world is this true?

graymatters 2y ago

Dresden rules should be applied to Gaza. Israel is way too considerate with Lavender. Every other house in Gaza is full of weapons.