4 ms·

Palantir exists, this would just be competition. It's not like Google is the only company capable of creating autonomous weapons so if they abstain the world is

by vasco 2y ago

Palantir exists, this would just be competition. It's not like Google is the only company capable of creating autonomous weapons so if they abstain the world is saved. They just want a piece of the pie. The problem is the pie comes with dead babies, but if you forget that part it's alright.

astrange 2y ago
Palantir doesn't make autonomous weapons, they sell SQL queries and have an evil-sounding name because it recruits juniors who think the name is cool. Might be thinking of Anduril.
- trhway 2y ago
  Palantir provides combat management system in Ukraine. That system collect and analyzes intelligence, including drone video streams, and identifies targets. Right now people are still in the loop though that is naturally would go away in the near future I think.
- cookiengineer 2y ago
  Palantir literally developed Lavender that has been used for autonomous targeting in the bombardments of the Gaza stripe. Look it up.
  - pbiggar 2y ago
    https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
tmnvdb 2y ago
With or without autonomous weapons, war is always a sordid business with 'dead babies', this is not in itself a fact that tells us what weapons systems to develop.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  Yet there are boundaries on which weapons we can and cannot develop: Nuclear, Chemical, Biological etc.
  - tmnvdb 2y ago
    Indeed. Usually weapons are banned if the damage is high and indiscriminate while the military usefulness is low. There is at this moment little evidence that autonomous weapons will cause more collateral damage than artillery shells and regular air strikes. The military usefulness on other other hand seems to be very high and increasing.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      It seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be wanting evidence of in order to avoid, though Like skydiving without a parachute, I think we should accept it is a bad idea without needing a double blind study
      - tmnvdb 2y ago
        The risks needs to be weighed against the downside of not deploying a capable system against your enemies.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        It's a bit too late for that, since Ukraine and Russia are both already using AI-controlled drones in combat.
      - vasco 2y ago
        Not all is bad, it's preferable to have autonomous systems killing each other than killing humans. If it gets very prevalent you could even get to a point where war is just simulated war games. Why have an AI piloted F-35 fight a AI piloted J-36? Just do it on the computer. It's at least 1 or 2 less pilots that die in that case.
    - deleted 2y ago

by vasco 2y ago

astrange 2y ago

Palantir doesn't make autonomous weapons, they sell SQL queries and have an evil-sounding name because it recruits juniors who think the name is cool. Might be thinking of Anduril.

trhway 2y ago
Palantir provides combat management system in Ukraine. That system collect and analyzes intelligence, including drone video streams, and identifies targets. Right now people are still in the loop though that is naturally would go away in the near future I think.
cookiengineer 2y ago
Palantir literally developed Lavender that has been used for autonomous targeting in the bombardments of the Gaza stripe. Look it up.
- pbiggar 2y ago
  https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

tmnvdb 2y ago

With or without autonomous weapons, war is always a sordid business with 'dead babies', this is not in itself a fact that tells us what weapons systems to develop.

darth_avocado 2y ago
Yet there are boundaries on which weapons we can and cannot develop: Nuclear, Chemical, Biological etc.
- tmnvdb 2y ago
  Indeed. Usually weapons are banned if the damage is high and indiscriminate while the military usefulness is low. There is at this moment little evidence that autonomous weapons will cause more collateral damage than artillery shells and regular air strikes. The military usefulness on other other hand seems to be very high and increasing.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    It seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be wanting evidence of in order to avoid, though Like skydiving without a parachute, I think we should accept it is a bad idea without needing a double blind study
    - tmnvdb 2y ago
      The risks needs to be weighed against the downside of not deploying a capable system against your enemies.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      It's a bit too late for that, since Ukraine and Russia are both already using AI-controlled drones in combat.
    - vasco 2y ago
      Not all is bad, it's preferable to have autonomous systems killing each other than killing humans. If it gets very prevalent you could even get to a point where war is just simulated war games. Why have an AI piloted F-35 fight a AI piloted J-36? Just do it on the computer. It's at least 1 or 2 less pilots that die in that case.
  - deleted 2y ago