4 ms·
My point is about military efficiency, which is measured by avoiding civilian casualties. Palantir's tech is the opposite of that.
by cookiengineer 1y ago
My point is about military efficiency, which is measured by avoiding civilian casualties.
Palantir's tech is the opposite of that.
- Terr_ 1y agoBut they aren't civilians, the computer said so! /s
- wizzwizz4 1y agoThe Nuremberg defence meets "a computer must never make a management decision."
- Terr_ 1y agoRelevant book: Unaccountability Machines - https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo252799883.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo252799... Amusingly, I started reading it without knowing it was from the same author as another book I'd read before about the economics of scams, Lying For Money.
- chii 1y agoThey avoided larger number of civilian casualties/deaths. The strikes will happen, and if you did not know of the approximate location, you will then use more saturation strikes for _even more_ locations to ensure target is hit. The fact that a target _needs_ to be hit is indisputable.
- Terr_ 1y ago> The fact that a target _needs_ to be hit is indisputable. At best, you're confusing "indisputable" with "an input or requirement imposed by the user." At worst, the software is suggesting who ought to be killed, the user trusts the software, and then the software trusts the user's choice, and the magic of circular-logic supposedly absolves everyone involved of responsibility when murder happens.
- drewbeck 1y agoThe underlying ethos here is “the target must be hit, regardless of the number of civilian casualties,” which is actually evil. “Palantir allowed us to go from 10000 civilian casualties per target hit to 9000” is not some win, it’s a confession of genocidal intent.