The navel gazing about AI is a stupid angle. It sounds like a typical corporate tale of the untouchable new boss who has determined that the software he brought

The navel gazing about AI is a stupid angle. It sounds like a typical corporate tale of the untouchable new boss who has determined that the software he brought in is infallible, “emperor has no clothes” style. The real story is that they formulated a much higher acceptable ratio of collateral deaths and changed the internal processes to make it impossible to escalate problems. To the point that they allowed Israel to be attacked because nobody could report what they saw up the chain of command. End of the day, if I’m allowed to blow up a crowd to kill one dude, more people are gonna die. The AI angle is a volume knob. Unasked questions are: Who exactly demanded the higher target count? Did the flooding of the combat arms teams with targets allow important targets to escape? Did this program advance the goals of executing a war? Or did it cause a needless war? Or did it primarily serve a political purpose?