9 ms·

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 info

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 3y 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 3y ago
  [deleted]
solarpunk 3y ago
20 second turnaround from target acquisition to strikes seems to guarantee it's become the latter.
- hluska 3y ago
  Do you have enough military experience to say this? Or are you just guessing? I’ll guarantee that it’s the latter.
  - JohnKemeny 3y 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 3y 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".
      - NomDePlum 3y ago
        There is testimony to that exact occurrence in the article in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai... Quote: "I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added-value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time.”
hluska 3y ago
[flagged]
- smashah 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dotnet00 3y ago
  When this latest series of attacks started there was still some room to charitably interpret what the IDF had to deal with, but we've had months of constant action and very obvious suffering and death that the IDF has been imposing upon Gaza, either intentionally or through sheer apathy. They've long since lost the "oh but think critically" excuse. The amount of suffering they are inflicting is not at all justified, it has gone far beyond just a tit-for-tat retaliation.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      "We all should have worked harder" is such an absurd thing to be saying alongside that sorry excuse you've presented. The entire point of human rights and rules of war is that there are certain rights the people of even small countries that started the fight are entitled to. You don't just get to excuse relentlessly bombing hospitals and aid workers. "We thought it was a military target, but we will not disclose why, nor will we disclose what we're doing to not make this mistake in the future" is not a get out of jail free card for genocides, especially when it never seems to come with any actual signs of improvement. Campaigns to stop genocides in other places having been unsuccessful does not justify smaller genocides taking place elsewhere. That's not critical thinking, that's whataboutism. Particularly considering that not only is America's supposedly democratic leadership not condemning the atrocities, they're actively offering the aid to continue it while claiming to want peace. Being from India, I can relate to the troubles with islamic terrorism that Israel has faced, which is why I mentioned having initially been sympathetic. But if India engaged in this large scale indiscriminate slaughter of muslims, it'd have been rendered a pariah on a similar tier as Russia. As it stands it's already constantly accused of being undemocratic and violating the rights of Muslims, despite never having undertaken deliberate, remorseless government sanctioned slaughter of this scale. It took far less for the current Indian prime minister to be banned from Western nations when he was chief minister of a state. All he had to do was fail to stop a much less deadly riot and get repeatedly exonerated from accusations of wrongdoing by several courts.
GuB-42 3y ago
Ideally, that would be "Computer says we shouldn't kill these people, let's not".
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  It’s a very powerful drug to be able to shrug your shoulders and say you were just doing as you were told.
lozenge 3y ago
"I'm sure that's what was intended" Intended by who? You don't kill 13,000 children by accident.
- kobayashi 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - lozenge 3y ago
    The median age in Gaza in 2014 was 18. According to researchers in the US, 50%-61% of buildings have been damaged or destroyed. If Israel didn't kill tens of thousands of children it would be a statistical miracle.
    - nsguy 3y ago
      Not sure how we got to "tens of thousands of children" when even the Hamas reports don't claim that. I think 12,300 is the last claim I saw a little bit back which is not "tens of thousands" but I agree is a large number. You're assuming the children are evenly distributed and buildings are attacked randomly and evenly. None of which is true. Many buildings have been demolished with explosives or bulldozers while empty. Many buildings were damaged during combat with walls being breached to provide access. In many cases buildings were attacked in areas that have been ordered to evacuate. (yes not all cases). There's no doubt many children have been killed. We've all seen terrible photos of individual children dead. I don't think it's "tens of thousands" and I'm not sure we'll have accurate numbers. Other than that as you note there's a large number of children and so they've definitely and unfortunately impacted.
      - killerdhmo 3y ago
        What do you possibly get about trying to hairsplit the number OF DEAD CHILDREN. Oh, yes, you’re right. It wasn’t 20,000 so we shouldn’t say “tens of thousand” it was just twelve thousand three hundred children. “Impacted” is definitely one word for it. Murdered another.
NomDePlum 3y ago
I read that article and feel your interpretation is very misleading/wrong. The Guardian article makes it clear prior to those denials that those higher-up appear to not to care how accurate it is and appear to be making a conscious choice to accept the fact it is highly flawed on the basis that it might kill some of whom they would legitimately claim as valid targets. It's clear from the operational details discussed in the article the critical target number is largely number of kills, regardless of whether they are any actual material threat, or not. Cull predominantly the male population and their family members, not assassinate active threats is the overall impression I got of the Israeli strategy. I must add that anyone claiming the use of AI and inference models in this way is in anyway justifiable needs to seek help. The claim of 90% accuracy is almost certainly over claiming by over 100%.

pixl97 3y 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 3y ago
[deleted]

solarpunk 3y ago

20 second turnaround from target acquisition to strikes seems to guarantee it's become the latter.

hluska 3y ago
Do you have enough military experience to say this? Or are you just guessing? I’ll guarantee that it’s the latter.
- JohnKemeny 3y 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 3y 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".
    - NomDePlum 3y ago
      There is testimony to that exact occurrence in the article in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai... Quote: "I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added-value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time.”

hluska 3y ago

[flagged]

smashah 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dotnet00 3y ago
When this latest series of attacks started there was still some room to charitably interpret what the IDF had to deal with, but we've had months of constant action and very obvious suffering and death that the IDF has been imposing upon Gaza, either intentionally or through sheer apathy. They've long since lost the "oh but think critically" excuse. The amount of suffering they are inflicting is not at all justified, it has gone far beyond just a tit-for-tat retaliation.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    "We all should have worked harder" is such an absurd thing to be saying alongside that sorry excuse you've presented. The entire point of human rights and rules of war is that there are certain rights the people of even small countries that started the fight are entitled to. You don't just get to excuse relentlessly bombing hospitals and aid workers. "We thought it was a military target, but we will not disclose why, nor will we disclose what we're doing to not make this mistake in the future" is not a get out of jail free card for genocides, especially when it never seems to come with any actual signs of improvement. Campaigns to stop genocides in other places having been unsuccessful does not justify smaller genocides taking place elsewhere. That's not critical thinking, that's whataboutism. Particularly considering that not only is America's supposedly democratic leadership not condemning the atrocities, they're actively offering the aid to continue it while claiming to want peace. Being from India, I can relate to the troubles with islamic terrorism that Israel has faced, which is why I mentioned having initially been sympathetic. But if India engaged in this large scale indiscriminate slaughter of muslims, it'd have been rendered a pariah on a similar tier as Russia. As it stands it's already constantly accused of being undemocratic and violating the rights of Muslims, despite never having undertaken deliberate, remorseless government sanctioned slaughter of this scale. It took far less for the current Indian prime minister to be banned from Western nations when he was chief minister of a state. All he had to do was fail to stop a much less deadly riot and get repeatedly exonerated from accusations of wrongdoing by several courts.

GuB-42 3y ago

Ideally, that would be "Computer says we shouldn't kill these people, let's not".

jiggawatts 3y ago
It’s a very powerful drug to be able to shrug your shoulders and say you were just doing as you were told.

lozenge 3y ago

"I'm sure that's what was intended" Intended by who? You don't kill 13,000 children by accident.

kobayashi 3y ago
[flagged]
- lozenge 3y ago
  The median age in Gaza in 2014 was 18. According to researchers in the US, 50%-61% of buildings have been damaged or destroyed. If Israel didn't kill tens of thousands of children it would be a statistical miracle.
  - nsguy 3y ago
    Not sure how we got to "tens of thousands of children" when even the Hamas reports don't claim that. I think 12,300 is the last claim I saw a little bit back which is not "tens of thousands" but I agree is a large number. You're assuming the children are evenly distributed and buildings are attacked randomly and evenly. None of which is true. Many buildings have been demolished with explosives or bulldozers while empty. Many buildings were damaged during combat with walls being breached to provide access. In many cases buildings were attacked in areas that have been ordered to evacuate. (yes not all cases). There's no doubt many children have been killed. We've all seen terrible photos of individual children dead. I don't think it's "tens of thousands" and I'm not sure we'll have accurate numbers. Other than that as you note there's a large number of children and so they've definitely and unfortunately impacted.
    - killerdhmo 3y ago
      What do you possibly get about trying to hairsplit the number OF DEAD CHILDREN. Oh, yes, you’re right. It wasn’t 20,000 so we shouldn’t say “tens of thousand” it was just twelve thousand three hundred children. “Impacted” is definitely one word for it. Murdered another.

NomDePlum 3y ago

I read that article and feel your interpretation is very misleading/wrong. The Guardian article makes it clear prior to those denials that those higher-up appear to not to care how accurate it is and appear to be making a conscious choice to accept the fact it is highly flawed on the basis that it might kill some of whom they would legitimately claim as valid targets. It's clear from the operational details discussed in the article the critical target number is largely number of kills, regardless of whether they are any actual material threat, or not. Cull predominantly the male population and their family members, not assassinate active threats is the overall impression I got of the Israeli strategy. I must add that anyone claiming the use of AI and inference models in this way is in anyway justifiable needs to seek help. The claim of 90% accuracy is almost certainly over claiming by over 100%.