4 ms·

> One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote

by fhd2 3y ago

> One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing [...] Brings the Ironies of Automation paper to mind: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation Specifically: If _most_ of a task is automated, human oversight becomes near useless. People get bored, are under time pressure, don't find enough mistakes etc and just don't do the review job they're supposed to do anymore. A dystopian travesty.

forgetfreeman 3y ago
Nothing a few rounds of war crimes trials, complete with gallows, in the Hague won't sort out, especially if the court decided (oh I can dream) that the execs and major investors of the company that implemented the system are culpable.
- flyinglizard 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    No one is commenting on the justice or lack served by the war, just saying humans should be at the wheel and responsible for outcomes.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    Flagged for long debunked [0] misinformation. 0 - https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt_anat_schwartz https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt_anat_schwartz And even if this were true, collective punishment is still a war crime, and there's still never an excuse for genocide.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > war crimes trials What is the alleged war crime in using a machine for target filtration?
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    Given their system is in the decision tree for operations any war crime committed during the course of said operations should apply. Did you want an abridged list of likely candidates? Because I just finished spending an hour poring over ICC Article 8 and the Geneva Conventions and I have copypasta on hand ready to go.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Did you want an abridged list of likely candidates? Do you have a single, strongest one? Copypasta rarely advances an argument.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - forgetfreeman 3y ago
        FromICC Article 8: (https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/5nsf46 https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/5nsf46....) Pick your favorite from i, ii, iii, iv, v, and xxv, or give then entire document a read and tell us what you think.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        I asked for a single, strongest form of your argument. That means an event and a law. You provided a reference to the law. This sounds like you don’t have an argument, just the most generic of sources.
        forgetfreeman 3y ago
        Really? Because from where I'm sitting it sounds like you're trying to avoid the reading assignment. You don't wanna do your homework that's your business but don't expect me to let you crib my notes. Having directly addressed your nuisance attempt at shifting the focus of conversation, let me bluntly remind you the original point was IF war crimes are committed AND a company's product features prominently in the planning of said THEN it stands to reason that the executives and major investors of the company should share a slice of the responsibility for the war crimes their product helped enable. If you're looking to pick a fight over whether the Israeli army's evergreen struggle with correctly identifying aid convoys, UN aid warehouses, and bog standard emergency response vehicles (all explicitly protected under international law) constitutes a war crime take that nonsense to Facebook or X.
cchance 3y ago
I mean at the end of the day an AI being rubber stamped or a human being rubber stamping "minor intel" for a drone strike its still bullshit. But blaming AI is just easier than acknoledging at every step of this theres a human being Oking it, the war is Ok'd by a human, the target list is ok'd by a human, the missle launch/bomb drop is ok'd by a human, the fucking trigger is pulled by a human. But sure because the target list was vetted by an AI its the AI's fault.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by fhd2 3y ago

forgetfreeman 3y ago

Nothing a few rounds of war crimes trials, complete with gallows, in the Hague won't sort out, especially if the court decided (oh I can dream) that the execs and major investors of the company that implemented the system are culpable.

flyinglizard 3y ago
[flagged]
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  No one is commenting on the justice or lack served by the war, just saying humans should be at the wheel and responsible for outcomes.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  Flagged for long debunked [0] misinformation. 0 - https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt_anat_schwartz https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt_anat_schwartz And even if this were true, collective punishment is still a war crime, and there's still never an excuse for genocide.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> war crimes trials What is the alleged war crime in using a machine for target filtration?
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  Given their system is in the decision tree for operations any war crime committed during the course of said operations should apply. Did you want an abridged list of likely candidates? Because I just finished spending an hour poring over ICC Article 8 and the Geneva Conventions and I have copypasta on hand ready to go.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Did you want an abridged list of likely candidates? Do you have a single, strongest one? Copypasta rarely advances an argument.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - forgetfreeman 3y ago
      FromICC Article 8: (https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/5nsf46 https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/5nsf46....) Pick your favorite from i, ii, iii, iv, v, and xxv, or give then entire document a read and tell us what you think.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        I asked for a single, strongest form of your argument. That means an event and a law. You provided a reference to the law. This sounds like you don’t have an argument, just the most generic of sources.
        forgetfreeman 3y ago
        Really? Because from where I'm sitting it sounds like you're trying to avoid the reading assignment. You don't wanna do your homework that's your business but don't expect me to let you crib my notes. Having directly addressed your nuisance attempt at shifting the focus of conversation, let me bluntly remind you the original point was IF war crimes are committed AND a company's product features prominently in the planning of said THEN it stands to reason that the executives and major investors of the company should share a slice of the responsibility for the war crimes their product helped enable. If you're looking to pick a fight over whether the Israeli army's evergreen struggle with correctly identifying aid convoys, UN aid warehouses, and bog standard emergency response vehicles (all explicitly protected under international law) constitutes a war crime take that nonsense to Facebook or X.

cchance 3y ago

I mean at the end of the day an AI being rubber stamped or a human being rubber stamping "minor intel" for a drone strike its still bullshit. But blaming AI is just easier than acknoledging at every step of this theres a human being Oking it, the war is Ok'd by a human, the target list is ok'd by a human, the missle launch/bomb drop is ok'd by a human, the fucking trigger is pulled by a human. But sure because the target list was vetted by an AI its the AI's fault.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]