5 ms·
What you're describing might be intended. Your argument hinges on the assumption that oversight was supposed to stop this, but it could be they just have a hig
by grayfaced 2y ago
What you're describing might be intended. Your argument hinges on the assumption that oversight was supposed to stop this, but it could be they just have a higher level of acceptable collateral damage.
Either way, it's the responsibility of humans to design risk controls. When the AI makes a mistake it should be auditable how it came to that decision. The humans need proper training and regular exercises and ultimately to be held accountable.
I believe this achievable for those that want to achieve it.
- KenArrari 2y agoThe system specifically target members when they're home with their families, even when theyhave chances to hit them during combat. At this point it's just an excuse, they've found the best way to maximize the civilians they can kill but still use the "human shields" blood libel.
- maxglute 2y agoWhatever the rationale, it's set a baseline for "collateral damage".
- patcon 2y agoAnd it has used AI to minimize collateral damage globally, but perhaps maximize acceptable collateral damage of a certain sort. It kills not just the target, but those who love them most... and who might feel the strongest sense of loss, otherwise. I fear for this world, where any movement that challenges [illegitimately-held] power can die in a cradle of strategically bombed relationships. The Geneva Convention was not designed to grapple with this level of micro-targeting...