61–70 of 1001 posts
Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants. The world should not forget this.
Probably going to be flame city in this thread, but I think it’s worth asking: is it possible that even with collateral damage (killing women and children because of hallucinations) that AI based killing technology is actually more ethical and safer than warfare that doesn’t use AI. But AI is really just another name for math, so maybe it’s not a useful conversation. Militaries use advanced tech and that’s nothing ne…
> AI based killing technology is actually more ethical and safer than warfare that doesn’t use AI No. It's just a tool. People still configure the parameters and ultimately make decisions. Likewise modern missile do not make conflicts more or less ethical just because they require advanced physics.
Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants. The world should not forget this.
[flagged]
Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants. The world should not forget this.
Definitely Palestinians are not going to forget this.
Can we please discuss the merits of this article — role of AI in future conflicts — without taking sides on any of the ongoing wars?
If Israel wasn't able to use tools like this, then it probably wouldn't be viable for them to identify much of Hamas (that's kind of the point of guerilla warfare). Since that would make it difficult to fight a war efficiently, they would be more likely to engage in diplomacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no justification for killing.
There are some justifications for killing. Like if you can save many lives by killing one. But in general, I agree with you.
1) Where do you draw the line? 2) At what number does that one become two? 3) how long do you think until AI is justified to start killing those single digit persons?
4) What if that one person is you? (this is not that hard to imagine, suppose a fictitious near future where everyone that contributed to some extinction event is deemed killable: AI development, global warming, failed to do some recycling, etc).
AI
Yeah, yeah guidelines and all.