Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

972mag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#651

Post by pvarangot »

sph wrote: post #645
zelphirkalt wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The feeling I got during the last months here when there are articles about this war is, that there are either many Israelis here flagging anything that makes Israel look bad, or many Americans, who somehow feel allegiance to Israel and think that this ever was about a good cause. On the other hand of course there are also those that jump on any claim that makes Israel look bad. Claims of which there are many. Of whi…

The astroturfing from pro-Israel parties on social media is incredible, but nothing beats the Reddit situation. I was just browsing /r/ukpolitics just now, and it is mind boggling how many pro-Israel comments come from people that apparently are only commenting about that topic. No activity whatsoever on popular subs, on hobby subs, but instead their entire posting history is composed of months and months of tireless…

Reddit is a problem only on the popular frontpage subs for people with just-reading or no accounts. If you make an account and read certain subs their algorithm will recommend you the alternate subs that are less astroturfed and the discussion is free from people telling you that there's evidence and reports that don't exist and insult you if you ask for links, or people that say that something says something and post you a link and then you go and it says something else (usually less favorable to Israel). The main subs have been pretty bad with Israel-related news since forever, it's not a new thing, it's that there's more of those news now.

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#652

Post by firejake308 »

Quanttek wrote: post #108

Years ago, scholars (such as Didier Bigo) have already raised concerns about the targeting of individuals merely based on (indirect) association with a "terrorist" or "criminal". Originally used in the context of surveillance (see Snowden revelations), such systems would target anyone who would be e.g. less than 3-steps away from an identified individual, thereby removing any sense of due process or targeted surveill…

Practical AI did a podcast episode about the dangers of using AI models as a shield to hide behind in justifying your decisions. The episode was titled "Suspicion Machines" and based on the libked article [1], and I think it's worth a read/listen.

[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/welfare-state-algorithms/

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#653

Post by Thiez »

nikkwong wrote: post #493
smt88 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you think they should have autonomy and a democratic state, which most of the world also agrees with.

"Democratic" is pushing it a tad too far—none of the Islamic world follows a rule of law that would be something akin to a democracy; they're monarchies, theocracies, or in many cases autocracies. The only actual democracy in the middle east is—well, Israel.

Iran had a democracy, until the CIA toppled it in 1953. In general having oil means foreign powers will keep installing useful puppets as leaders. The middle east having few democracies may have more to do with Western greed than with the preferences of Arabs or Muslims.

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#654

Post by onethought »

koutetsu wrote: post #650

As someone working in the AI field, I find this use of AI truly terrifying. Today it may be used to target Hamas and accept a relatively large number of civilian deaths as permissible collateral damage, but nothing guarantees that it won't be exported and used somewhere else. On top of that, I don't think anything is done to alleviate biases in the data (if you're used to target people from a certain group then your…

Given we don’t know what it’s using to identify people we don’t really know any biases. “Holding a military weapon” probably doesn’t contain a whole lot of bias (of course there is misidentification).

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#656

Post by nickff »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #241
mardifoufs wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's Israel. It's also why no western country has ever really officially condemned Israel no matter what they do. They are on "our side" so it's okay. And those civilians kind of deserved it anyways or something, and we can just trust every single word the IDF says and use them as an actual source to pretend the IDF isn't into mass civilian murder. The only thing that made this time a bit different is the cra…

Even when our own citizens are killed, they don't get condemned. E.g. the IDF targeted and killed a Canadian UN peacekeeper in 2008 (because he got too squeaky) and the Canadian gov't barely lodged a protest. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/un-officer-reported-is...

The example you're citing was actually investigated, and (IIRC) it was found that Hezbollah was firing mortar(s) from a position directly adjacent to the UN post. I believe that it was generally assumed that Hezbollah was using the Canadians as 'human shields'. Culpability in such situations is usually attributed to the shield-users, largely due to the consequences of attributing blame to the retaliators (i.e. encouraging further use of human shields).

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#657

Post by Quanttek »

nickff wrote: post #589
jibe wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers, propagandists, financiers, …) can be targeted for attack It seems wrong that you can't target weapon manufacturers, can you cite a source? Weapon manufacturers contribute to the military action, and destroying weapon manufacturers contributes to military advantage.

This is a very 'anti-war' opinion by a lawyer affiliated with the Red Cross, not some sort of treaty or other convention. As an example, the Geneva Convention's scope of protection is much narrower.

While the DPH Guidance has it's controversial parts (Rec IX), the guidance on interpreting "directly participating in hostilities" is quite authoritative.

And that should be emphasized: the Geneva Conventions allow the targeting of military objectives, combatants (i.e. members of armed forces) and "civilians directly participating in hostilities". The Guidance just interprets the latter and arguably widens the scope, because - without the invention of "continuous combatant function" - you could attack e.g. members of Hamas' armed wing during an attack and in preparation of one. Now you can attack them at any time.

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#658

Post by tmnvix »

steviedotboston wrote: post #636
tmnvix wrote: post #478

Given the total failure to achieve any of its stated objectives, has this use of AI benefited the IDF at all? I would argue that it's likely the only outcome it has had that directly relates to IDF objectives has probably been negative (i.e. the unintended killing of hostages). Sadly, I think that the continued use of this AI is supported because it is helping to provide cover for individuals involved in war crimes.…

> Given the total failure to achieve any of its stated objectives, has this use of AI benefited the IDF at all? Hamas has been considerably diminished. It's not accurate to say the war has been a "total failure".

Politically and diplomatically, it could be argued Hamas have been considerably strengthened. They certainly think so.

It seems to me that Israel's overall position - politically, diplomatically, and in terms of physical security - has become much worse since the October 7 attack and it has been their own actions that are responsible for the change. A different response should have seen them politically and diplomatically strengthened.

I understand the emotive reasons for not doing so, but I think most people would consider that Israel has bungled their response to October 7.

I would call this attack on Gaza a total failure. If nothing else a failure of humanity.

It's looking more and more like the 'winners' in this situation are Hamas and the losers are the Israeli government, the US government, and the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#659

Post by outside1234 »

wruza wrote: post #596
robbomacrae wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disturbing indeed. I've been worried a push back in AI is coming and this sort of story could be a tipping point and certainly would justify a period of reflection. And your probably right that the alternatives maybe worse, the folks behind Lavender could probably even prove it with data.. but there should be a moral impetus to always have a human in the loop regardless. And any such attempt to justify it won't captu…

there should be a moral impetus to always have a human in the loop regardless I don’t understand how to come to this. War is crap, not a dinner party. There’s always a human on both sides who will drop a bomb and laugh on camera, with no responsibility. Go watch it (actually don’t, it’s NSFL). Reading this thread feels like everyone watched and believed in that movie where they tried to select and eliminate a target…

The thing that is different is now that human has an excuse: "The computer told me to put them in the oven."

Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza

#660

Post by GeoAtreides »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #159
wantlotsofcurry wrote: post #137

Upsetting how quickly the other thread was flagged and downranked.

As someone who sees both sides of this, and as someone who didn't understand this for some time, it's important to understand that one reason a story is likely to get flagged is because users think it's highly unlikely to lead to productive discussion . It doesn't mean it's a bad story, or even unworthy of discussion, but many types of stories seem to, pretty predictably, lead to a cesspool of comments where it's cle…

> users think it's highly unlikely to lead to productive discussion

I wish people would let people decide for themselves what is productive or not...

Post reply on HN