4 ms·

> it's horrifying and categorically unethical to use them to decide who to kill. Absolute statements are hard. I mean, I agree with the sentiment, but I can't

by mlyle 3y ago

> it's horrifying and categorically unethical to use them to decide who to kill. Absolute statements are hard. I mean, I agree with the sentiment, but I can't get behind such a strong statement. If you have a 10 person group deciding who to kill, and reduce their workload with AI so that the 10 person group can take more time double checking-- that's "using AI to decide who to kill" but probably improves outcomes. The problem is, in practice, we know that people are just going to punt responsibility to the machine and shrug.

ethbr1 3y ago
The fundamental reality is that compressing decision timelines creates more effective military outcomes. Everything else flows from that. At a high-level, that decision compression will be an arms race between competitors for military advantage, where the argument to relax human-scale decisions will be "If we don't do it, we'll lose to someone who will." You saw the same thing in the nuclear arms race, as launch-to-impact time compression (as technology advanced) eroded available human decision time.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > The fundamental reality is that compressing decision timelines creates more effective military outcomes. But popping off half-cocked often results in bad outcomes, so there's a tradeoff between decision quality and decision time. In theory, having AI in the loop could improve both. In practice, I suspect you're right.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Unfortunately, the negative impact of killing civilians currently seems to be... minimal. And maybe always has been, internationally-speaking? It would be nice to reform UN and supra-national rules of warfare in light of modern developments. Even a "this is an acceptable ratio of civilian collateral deaths, above which constitutes a war crime" would be helpful for curtailing nation's baser urges.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > And maybe always has been, internationally-speaking? If I had to guess, it was even less. Now at least there can be media backlash. > Even a "this is an acceptable ratio of civilian collateral deaths, above which constitutes a war crime" would be helpful for curtailing nation's baser urges. Having some kind of metric would be nice. However, there are problems with it being too simple (your enemy has a say in how exposed their civilians are; and we'd hate to leave countries with less precision in their militaries without the ability to defend themselves).
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> reduce their workload If killing the right person is too much work then you shouldn’t be killing
throw7 3y ago
We will find the "evidence" to extract our pound of flesh. It was Curveball then, it happens to be "AI" now.
passion__desire 3y ago
US decided not to bomb Kyoto in WW2 because Henry Kissinger had visited it and was enthralled by its beauty. Somehow such decisions are ok because made by a human?
- passion__desire 3y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 Some historians say US Secretary for War Henry Stimson had a personal reason for sparing Kyoto. (edit : wrong Henry)

by mlyle 3y ago

ethbr1 3y ago

The fundamental reality is that compressing decision timelines creates more effective military outcomes. Everything else flows from that. At a high-level, that decision compression will be an arms race between competitors for military advantage, where the argument to relax human-scale decisions will be "If we don't do it, we'll lose to someone who will." You saw the same thing in the nuclear arms race, as launch-to-impact time compression (as technology advanced) eroded available human decision time.

mlyle 3y ago
> The fundamental reality is that compressing decision timelines creates more effective military outcomes. But popping off half-cocked often results in bad outcomes, so there's a tradeoff between decision quality and decision time. In theory, having AI in the loop could improve both. In practice, I suspect you're right.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Unfortunately, the negative impact of killing civilians currently seems to be... minimal. And maybe always has been, internationally-speaking? It would be nice to reform UN and supra-national rules of warfare in light of modern developments. Even a "this is an acceptable ratio of civilian collateral deaths, above which constitutes a war crime" would be helpful for curtailing nation's baser urges.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > And maybe always has been, internationally-speaking? If I had to guess, it was even less. Now at least there can be media backlash. > Even a "this is an acceptable ratio of civilian collateral deaths, above which constitutes a war crime" would be helpful for curtailing nation's baser urges. Having some kind of metric would be nice. However, there are problems with it being too simple (your enemy has a say in how exposed their civilians are; and we'd hate to leave countries with less precision in their militaries without the ability to defend themselves).

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> reduce their workload If killing the right person is too much work then you shouldn’t be killing

throw7 3y ago

We will find the "evidence" to extract our pound of flesh. It was Curveball then, it happens to be "AI" now.

passion__desire 3y ago

US decided not to bomb Kyoto in WW2 because Henry Kissinger had visited it and was enthralled by its beauty. Somehow such decisions are ok because made by a human?

passion__desire 3y ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 Some historians say US Secretary for War Henry Stimson had a personal reason for sparing Kyoto. (edit : wrong Henry)