5 ms·

Doesn't really contain specifics on how this technology is being used from what I could tell. Presumably, one avenue is to aid in target acquisition. I would i

Doesn't really contain specifics on how this technology is being used from what I could tell. Presumably, one avenue is to aid in target acquisition. I would imagine being to more accurate determine a target is more efficient and results in less innocent lives lost than blanket bombing. Compare carpet bombing of German cities in WW2 to the laser guided munitions of today. Or those "sword" bombs that have been used to crush people in a car while not harming anyone on the sidewalk.

cempaka 2y ago
Israeli politicians and military officials are quite open about their desire to remove as many people from Gaza and the West Bank as possible. Better targeting is about more efficiently eliminating the resistance to these efforts.
- zadler 2y ago
  Which is not the same as avoiding collateral damage.
  - cempaka 2y ago
    Well, my point is more that the damage cannot be considered "collateral," but yes, it will yield more of it, not less.
    - zadler 2y ago
      Precision targeting should or could yield less but what’s happened is more like what you do to a windows 98 machine every year or two
jraby3 2y ago
It mentioned about 50% of the budget went towards translation and 25% towards chat gpt.
myrmidon 2y ago
This is a dangerous argument though, because it equates "improved target aquisition" with "less blanket bombing". This does not necessarily hold, because less "probabilistic" target aquisition capabilities might also just mean that less bombing is done because it is no longer cost effective. Consider WW2 Germany-- them having less access to "targetting data" (e.g. religion registers) was typically better for the population, because it made extermination campaigns less feasible: Contrast Netherlands vs France.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
  So fire bombing Dresden is better than targeting specific factories?
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    Dresden did not get fire bombed because the allies did not know where the factories were. Air raids against population centers were very much intentional, targeted and optimized (by relying on fire as a damage multiplier).
    - rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
      So are you really saying that large bomber formations carpeting an area is better than precision strikes?
      - myrmidon 2y ago
        No, you are arguing against a strawman. What I said is that more targetting information does not necessarily lead to less bombing (or less collateral damage), and the fact that Dresden was firebombed is neither here nor there.
        rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
        Dresden and other civilian areas that supported factories were bombed because better bombing abilities that could actually take out factories weren't available. The AGM-114R-9X has also been effective at targeting individuals which meant less collateral damage (i.e. innocent civilians) The evidence suggests that better targeting abilities have lead to less bombing and less civilians deaths because of it, though.

cempaka 2y ago

Israeli politicians and military officials are quite open about their desire to remove as many people from Gaza and the West Bank as possible. Better targeting is about more efficiently eliminating the resistance to these efforts.

zadler 2y ago
Which is not the same as avoiding collateral damage.
- cempaka 2y ago
  Well, my point is more that the damage cannot be considered "collateral," but yes, it will yield more of it, not less.
  - zadler 2y ago
    Precision targeting should or could yield less but what’s happened is more like what you do to a windows 98 machine every year or two

jraby3 2y ago

It mentioned about 50% of the budget went towards translation and 25% towards chat gpt.

myrmidon 2y ago

This is a dangerous argument though, because it equates "improved target aquisition" with "less blanket bombing". This does not necessarily hold, because less "probabilistic" target aquisition capabilities might also just mean that less bombing is done because it is no longer cost effective. Consider WW2 Germany-- them having less access to "targetting data" (e.g. religion registers) was typically better for the population, because it made extermination campaigns less feasible: Contrast Netherlands vs France.

rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
So fire bombing Dresden is better than targeting specific factories?
- myrmidon 2y ago
  Dresden did not get fire bombed because the allies did not know where the factories were. Air raids against population centers were very much intentional, targeted and optimized (by relying on fire as a damage multiplier).
  - rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
    So are you really saying that large bomber formations carpeting an area is better than precision strikes?
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      No, you are arguing against a strawman. What I said is that more targetting information does not necessarily lead to less bombing (or less collateral damage), and the fact that Dresden was firebombed is neither here nor there.
      - rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
        Dresden and other civilian areas that supported factories were bombed because better bombing abilities that could actually take out factories weren't available. The AGM-114R-9X has also been effective at targeting individuals which meant less collateral damage (i.e. innocent civilians) The evidence suggests that better targeting abilities have lead to less bombing and less civilians deaths because of it, though.