3 ms·
The US has been remotely striking targets for 20+ years and famously racked up a high casualty count on drone strikes during the Obama admin. The (incorrect) a
by cuuupid 7mo ago
The US has been remotely striking targets for 20+ years and famously racked up a high casualty count on drone strikes during the Obama admin.
The (incorrect) assumption you’re making here is that the US not only is using AI for later stage targeting, but that there is also no human who signed off on this. Note that the AI targeting system here, Maven, has been around even before GPT-2.
This is just pure AI alarmism. The worst part is absolutely anybody can sign up for Palantir AIP right now for free and see what it actually does with LLMs (spoiler: very boring!)
- culi 7mo agoFirst of all, the use of AI to determine targets is well documented. > The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the US military in Iran has “leveraged the most advanced artificial intelligence it’s ever used in warfare, a tool that could be difficult for the Pentagon to give up even as it severs ties with the company that created it.” > According to the Post, Palantir’s Maven Smart System—which contains Anthropic’s Claude AI language model—reportedly helped US commanders select 1,000 Iranian targets during the war’s first 24 hours alone. Second of all, I agree. There is certainly a human signing off. But AI ethics research has shown a clear and consistent a human bias towards trusting automated systems when there is ambiguity. I am not at all trying to redirect blame but I think it'd be foolish to not acknowledge the risks introduced with involving AI in decision making even if a human ultimately makes the call