4 ms·

Never thought I'd even consider this, but is this a case where those involved, producing and developing, this software should be tried for murder/crimes against

Never thought I'd even consider this, but is this a case where those involved, producing and developing, this software should be tried for murder/crimes against humanity? My understanding is that AI in it's current form is not an applicable technology to be anywhere near this type of use. Again my understanding: Inference models by their very nature are largely non-deterministic, in terms of being able to evaluate accurately against specific desired outcomes. They need large scale training data available to provide even low levels of accuracy. That type of training data just isn't available, its all likely to be based on one big hallucination, is my take. I'd be surprised if this AI model was even 10% accurate. It wouldn't surprise me if it was less than 1% accurate. Not that accuracy appears to be critical from what I've read. The Guardian article: 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..., makes me wonder whether AI development should be allowed at all. Didn't even have that thought before today. This specific application and the claimed rationale is as close as I have come to seeing what I consider true and deliberate "Evil application" of technology out in the open. Is this a naive take?

salawat 3y ago
It is not a naive take. Not by a long shot. Knowingly working on the development or upkeep of such a system, full well knowing it's limitations, and knowing of it's aftermath obliterates any level of clean hands in my eyes.
KETpXDDzR 3y ago
Guns/AI don't kill people. People do. If someone should be held responsible, it's the people that order the strikes.
- fumeux_fume 3y ago
  Hard to say without knowing all the facts, but it's quite reasonable to hold those who are accessories to atrocities responsible as well.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Buttons840 3y ago
  The line gets blurred a little here though. I give you a gun and say "shoot whoever you choose with this gun, the choice is yours". I give you an AI powered gun and say "use this however you choose, I have programmed it to automatically shoot in certain circumstances". In the latter case, I have some responsibility, because I shared in the decision making by programming the gun. Through my code I have put my proverbial finger on the trigger, right next to your finger.
  - NomDePlum 3y ago
    Why don't you have responsibilities in both scenario
    - AdamN 3y ago
      Exactly - the safest thing to do with the AI gun is not point it anybody and destroy it. Perhaps the AI gun shooting somebody wouldn't be an intentional murder but it's certainly manslaughter since you know that it could shoot whoever it's pointing at so simply pointing it at anybody is the active decision that frames the crime.
- p0w3n3d 3y ago
  Sorry but from an AI system that targets individuals to a system that kills them (they already have autonomous drones with computer vision) there is max 1-2 web services path. So AI kills people
- NomDePlum 3y ago
  Sorry. Guns do kill people. That's their whole point. I know roughly ~1000 people. Maybe 10 of them have the physical capability of killing someone, in case you don't know, it's not actually that easy to do it yourself. Of those not all could mentally do it under anything but the most extreme of circumstances. 2, maybe 3 might be actually capable of ending a life under extreme circumstances. With a gun probably, at a guess, ~400 - 700 could kill someone if they got anxious/scared enough is my bet. Even if I'm way off it's a lot more than without a gun. Couple of hundred at least. Not 2, or 3! So yes, I'm sorry, guns definitely, 100% kill people. And more people will absolutely kill someone if they possess a gun, than if the didn't. And by extension same is true if AI. I'm interested how you even come up with that response? It's obviously factually and logically wrong. What makes you think it makes a reasonable argument to anyone? Also, worth pointing out, thar AI in this case is insanely unfit for it's purpose (unlike a gun) and will have randomly killed lots of innocent people, even if the AI algorithm says otherwise.
  - denkmoon 3y ago
    You dramatically underestimate the physical capability of the people you know. Humans are strong and humans are fragile. Every single one of them could kill another human in a pre-technological society.
    - NomDePlum 3y ago
      Apologies for my earlier reply, it's been pointed out to me it was rude. It was and I'd like to apologise. On your point I'm not sure where you get the assertion any human could kill any other in pre-technological society. That appears evidently false to me. How did you come to that assertion?
      - denkmoon 3y ago
        Sure. I would say it is evidently true to me. As stated, humans are fragile. A punch or fall can easily cause brain injury leading to death. Get in an advantageous position on a person and they are going to have a real hard time preventing you strangling them unless they're trained/experienced in hand to hand fighting. On a purely physical level it is not hard to kill a person. This isn't even considering assistance from tools or infection, where a direct kill from fighting isn't required. The number of people capable of this isn't 100%, sure, but it's closer to 100% than your posited 10 in 1000, 0.1%
- DesiLurker 3y ago
  this is such BS argument, before guns you could still kill people but it'd take a lot more effort & organization to kill en-masse. same deal if you apply this logic to nukes or missiles. yes those people should be held responsible but there should be a systematic regulation of AI-robot killing machines just like we have geneva accords for cluster munitions or unusually cruel weapons. this is just common sense 101.
- fsflover 3y ago
  That's like saying "defibrillators don't save people, people save people".
  - NomDePlum 3y ago
    Both can (and are) true.
    - NomDePlum 3y ago
      Just spotted you are replying to the parent response, not mine. Fully agree and very succinctly put.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      The point is, without a defibrillator (gun) you will have a very hard time to save life (kill) even if you wanted to.
- KETpXDDzR 3y ago
  Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk
- Seirdy 3y ago
  Said people are trusting the intel from the AI. Those who provide that intel possible should shoulder responsibility for its effects, or at least its efficacy.
thisiszilff 3y ago
Depends on what "AI" means here. There is a spectrum of "we have a bunch of data in a database and some folks hand tuning queries" to "we built a deep learning network to predict XYZ." In the middle of that spectrum lie things like decision trees which provide explainable results.
- NomDePlum 3y ago
  It's the former, but from what I read in the article, a shady version of that is my take. The computer basically appeared to randomise a high number of people to kill based on a very shallow dataset, weak data linking and a high desire to kill people who are Palestinian. It's hard to read the details from the Guardian article and think of it as anything other than a randomised Israeli state murder machine. I can't envisage it being accurate to a point any reasonable person would accept it be used against someone they know, in any circumstances. That it targeted 10's of thousands is utterly horrifying. That it was involved in any actual battleground scenario makes me think those involved in it's creation and sale are culpable.
  - falleng0d 3y ago
    When you ban something like this, you are only barring the good actors
    - drawkward 3y ago
      0). I see no good actors here. 1). You also set up a legal framework for punishing people for doing this.
bevekspldnw 3y ago
It’s amply clear from reporting that the IDF has no formal RoE on the ground - low level commanders have full autonomy to kill whomever, whenever, with zero oversight. The “AI” exists to retcon the justification for any particular genocidal act, but this is really just an old school mindless slaughter driven by anger and racism.
thewileyone 3y ago
> This specific application and the claimed rationale is as close as I have come to seeing what I consider true and deliberate "Evil application" of technology out in the open. Someone will double down and include AI into the execution phase via AI controlled drones, tanks, etc. Then they will claim no responsibility and blame the ghost-in-the-shell.

salawat 3y ago

It is not a naive take. Not by a long shot. Knowingly working on the development or upkeep of such a system, full well knowing it's limitations, and knowing of it's aftermath obliterates any level of clean hands in my eyes.

KETpXDDzR 3y ago

Guns/AI don't kill people. People do. If someone should be held responsible, it's the people that order the strikes.

fumeux_fume 3y ago
Hard to say without knowing all the facts, but it's quite reasonable to hold those who are accessories to atrocities responsible as well.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Buttons840 3y ago
The line gets blurred a little here though. I give you a gun and say "shoot whoever you choose with this gun, the choice is yours". I give you an AI powered gun and say "use this however you choose, I have programmed it to automatically shoot in certain circumstances". In the latter case, I have some responsibility, because I shared in the decision making by programming the gun. Through my code I have put my proverbial finger on the trigger, right next to your finger.
- NomDePlum 3y ago
  Why don't you have responsibilities in both scenario
  - AdamN 3y ago
    Exactly - the safest thing to do with the AI gun is not point it anybody and destroy it. Perhaps the AI gun shooting somebody wouldn't be an intentional murder but it's certainly manslaughter since you know that it could shoot whoever it's pointing at so simply pointing it at anybody is the active decision that frames the crime.
p0w3n3d 3y ago
Sorry but from an AI system that targets individuals to a system that kills them (they already have autonomous drones with computer vision) there is max 1-2 web services path. So AI kills people
NomDePlum 3y ago
Sorry. Guns do kill people. That's their whole point. I know roughly ~1000 people. Maybe 10 of them have the physical capability of killing someone, in case you don't know, it's not actually that easy to do it yourself. Of those not all could mentally do it under anything but the most extreme of circumstances. 2, maybe 3 might be actually capable of ending a life under extreme circumstances. With a gun probably, at a guess, ~400 - 700 could kill someone if they got anxious/scared enough is my bet. Even if I'm way off it's a lot more than without a gun. Couple of hundred at least. Not 2, or 3! So yes, I'm sorry, guns definitely, 100% kill people. And more people will absolutely kill someone if they possess a gun, than if the didn't. And by extension same is true if AI. I'm interested how you even come up with that response? It's obviously factually and logically wrong. What makes you think it makes a reasonable argument to anyone? Also, worth pointing out, thar AI in this case is insanely unfit for it's purpose (unlike a gun) and will have randomly killed lots of innocent people, even if the AI algorithm says otherwise.
- denkmoon 3y ago
  You dramatically underestimate the physical capability of the people you know. Humans are strong and humans are fragile. Every single one of them could kill another human in a pre-technological society.
  - NomDePlum 3y ago
    Apologies for my earlier reply, it's been pointed out to me it was rude. It was and I'd like to apologise. On your point I'm not sure where you get the assertion any human could kill any other in pre-technological society. That appears evidently false to me. How did you come to that assertion?
    - denkmoon 3y ago
      Sure. I would say it is evidently true to me. As stated, humans are fragile. A punch or fall can easily cause brain injury leading to death. Get in an advantageous position on a person and they are going to have a real hard time preventing you strangling them unless they're trained/experienced in hand to hand fighting. On a purely physical level it is not hard to kill a person. This isn't even considering assistance from tools or infection, where a direct kill from fighting isn't required. The number of people capable of this isn't 100%, sure, but it's closer to 100% than your posited 10 in 1000, 0.1%
DesiLurker 3y ago
this is such BS argument, before guns you could still kill people but it'd take a lot more effort & organization to kill en-masse. same deal if you apply this logic to nukes or missiles. yes those people should be held responsible but there should be a systematic regulation of AI-robot killing machines just like we have geneva accords for cluster munitions or unusually cruel weapons. this is just common sense 101.
fsflover 3y ago
That's like saying "defibrillators don't save people, people save people".
- NomDePlum 3y ago
  Both can (and are) true.
  - NomDePlum 3y ago
    Just spotted you are replying to the parent response, not mine. Fully agree and very succinctly put.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    The point is, without a defibrillator (gun) you will have a very hard time to save life (kill) even if you wanted to.
KETpXDDzR 3y ago
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk
Seirdy 3y ago
Said people are trusting the intel from the AI. Those who provide that intel possible should shoulder responsibility for its effects, or at least its efficacy.

thisiszilff 3y ago

Depends on what "AI" means here. There is a spectrum of "we have a bunch of data in a database and some folks hand tuning queries" to "we built a deep learning network to predict XYZ." In the middle of that spectrum lie things like decision trees which provide explainable results.

NomDePlum 3y ago
It's the former, but from what I read in the article, a shady version of that is my take. The computer basically appeared to randomise a high number of people to kill based on a very shallow dataset, weak data linking and a high desire to kill people who are Palestinian. It's hard to read the details from the Guardian article and think of it as anything other than a randomised Israeli state murder machine. I can't envisage it being accurate to a point any reasonable person would accept it be used against someone they know, in any circumstances. That it targeted 10's of thousands is utterly horrifying. That it was involved in any actual battleground scenario makes me think those involved in it's creation and sale are culpable.
- falleng0d 3y ago
  When you ban something like this, you are only barring the good actors
  - drawkward 3y ago
    0). I see no good actors here. 1). You also set up a legal framework for punishing people for doing this.

bevekspldnw 3y ago

It’s amply clear from reporting that the IDF has no formal RoE on the ground - low level commanders have full autonomy to kill whomever, whenever, with zero oversight. The “AI” exists to retcon the justification for any particular genocidal act, but this is really just an old school mindless slaughter driven by anger and racism.

thewileyone 3y ago

> This specific application and the claimed rationale is as close as I have come to seeing what I consider true and deliberate "Evil application" of technology out in the open. Someone will double down and include AI into the execution phase via AI controlled drones, tanks, etc. Then they will claim no responsibility and blame the ghost-in-the-shell.