'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza • Hacker News Board

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

#821

Post by goatlover » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 4:29 AM UTC

digging wrote: post #451

sequoia wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm OK, I read this a bit differently. I read these sections: > One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. > According to the sources, the army knew that the minimal human supervisio…

> What is the "zero-error" alternative approach for dropping bombs in a war, or firing rockets for that matter? Honestly, I'm not sure. Obviously humans make errors of all sorts as well, and even make intentionally unethical decisions. I think the horror of this situation is that it makes war easier to wage. Accepting that all war has costs measured in blood, we should want less war. However, those in control of mili…

It can only work if a majority of Palestinians want to coexist with Israel. That hasn't been the case for the most part since 1948.

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

#822

Post by goatlover » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 4:34 AM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #557

sequoia wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm OK, I read this a bit differently. I read these sections: > One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. > According to the sources, the army knew that the minimal human supervisio…

We also have to be open to the possibility that Israel is committing a genocide and the goal is to kill as many Palestinians as possible and terrorize the rest. That the AI system’s main purpose isn’t to be accurate in selecting target, but rather to manufacture a reason to kill more Palestinians than a human ever could. Another function could be to remove accountability from a targeting officer. Zero-error is never…

And incredibly inefficient genocide. Why is it that modern discourse has become so polarized that criticism has to make the worst possible accusations?

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

#823

Post by ghufran_syed » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 4:42 AM UTC

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…

[flagged]

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

#824

Post by sgjohnson » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 4:43 AM UTC

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…

> That is, only members of the armed wing of Hamas (not recruiters, weapon manufacturers, propagandists, financiers, …) can be targeted for attack - all the others must be arrested and/or tried.

In theory, yes. In practice--in which make believe world is this true?

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

#825

Post by Buttons840 » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 4:44 AM UTC

KETpXDDzR wrote: post #794

NomDePlum wrote: post #789

Never thought I'd even consider this, but is this a case where those involved, producing and developing, this software should be tried for murder/crimes against humanity? My understanding is that AI in it's current form is not an applicable technology to be anywhere near this type of use. Again my understanding: Inference models by their very nature are largely non-deterministic, in terms of being able to evaluate ac…

Guns/AI don't kill people. People do. If someone should be held responsible, it's the people that order the strikes.

The line gets blurred a little here though.

I give you a gun and say "shoot whoever you choose with this gun, the choice is yours".

I give you an AI powered gun and say "use this however you choose, I have programmed it to automatically shoot in certain circumstances".

In the latter case, I have some responsibility, because I shared in the decision making by programming the gun. Through my code I have put my proverbial finger on the trigger, right next to your finger.

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

#826

Post by adastra22 » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 4:49 AM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #613

sequoia wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm OK, I read this a bit differently. I read these sections: > One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. > According to the sources, the army knew that the minimal human supervisio…

>> Comparing against some imaginary scenario where cars have no collisions and cause no deaths doesn't make sense. That's not the whole story. For example, we ban certain kinds of weapons -cluster munitions, chemical weapons, biological weapons, ideally we'd ban bloody mines- not because they kill too many people compared to "conventional" weapons (they don't) but because they are considered especially ... well, wron…

For clarity, cluster munitions and mines are banned because they kill indiscriminately and pose cleanup hazards.

Chemical and biological weapons are banned because, like nukes, escalation of their use results in a scorched earth scenario.

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

#827

Post by anonyhrwy63849 » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 4:56 AM UTC

[flagged]

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

#828

Post by palmfacehn » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 4:57 AM UTC

imjonse wrote: post #355

Qem wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's even books written about it. Shame on IBM for this. I suspect in the future we'll have lots of books like this, for other companies enabling this genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

The same author wrote Nazi Nexus, with separate chapters for different US companies' (Ford, GM) dealings with the Nazi regime. It can always be a case of "let's not bring politics into work" attitude or the belief that "tech is a tool only, can be used for good or ill" but at least in the years leading up to WW2 there was a lot of support for eugenics, antisemitism (Henry Ford was a notorious one) and other Nazi tend…

There's such a premium on outlining the crimes of the Nazis. Condemning eugenics and the culture of blind adherence to institutional norms is valuable. However the concerns ring hollow when we apply it in the retrospective or accusatory rather than the introspective sense.

For decades, Nazi-adjacency has been just another insult to be hurled at the political opponents we've othered. Depending on where you are on the political spectrum, "Nazi" could be synonymous with Elon Musk. In one breath we trivialize the evil humanity is capable of inflicting upon itself. In the next breath we exclaim, "Never again!"

The American Eugenics Society rebranded itself into, "Society for Biodemography and Social Biology". Ambiguous terms like, "bioethics" are used by eugenicist think tanks like "The Hastings Center" where explicit appeals to eugenics are undesirable. The Club of Rome evolved into the WEF. Paul Ehrlich's ideas are as popular as ever. The same eugenicist appeals for population control remain in the forefront of public discourse. Even here on HN, you will regularly find posters lamenting the impending doom of climate change. The answer, if you ask many here is the eugenicist policy of population control.

There are other themes in parallel, but I'll try to keep it somewhat concise and less controversial.

It isn't only the "Banality of Evil" or an engineer only who wants to go home to watch Netflix after designing a killer drone. Similar authoritarian ideas are celebrated in our popular discourse. Instead of examining these ideas critically, we accuse political others, dehumanize them and finally rationalize them into the Nazis.

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

#829

Post by p0w3n3d » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 5:03 AM UTC

KETpXDDzR wrote: post #794

NomDePlum wrote: post #789

Never thought I'd even consider this, but is this a case where those involved, producing and developing, this software should be tried for murder/crimes against humanity? My understanding is that AI in it's current form is not an applicable technology to be anywhere near this type of use. Again my understanding: Inference models by their very nature are largely non-deterministic, in terms of being able to evaluate ac…

Guns/AI don't kill people. People do. If someone should be held responsible, it's the people that order the strikes.

Sorry but from an AI system that targets individuals to a system that kills them (they already have autonomous drones with computer vision) there is max 1-2 web services path. So AI kills people

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

#830

Post by Buttons840 » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 5:03 AM UTC

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".

Just a day or two ago there was another IDF raid on Shifa hospital.

Months ago the IDF claims that Hamas is operating out of tunnels under the hospital, they raid the hospital. A few weeks later, they raid the hospital again, and again, and again, up until this recent raid some days ago.

You claim Hamas is diminished, but how diminished can they really be if they keep popping up in the same predictable place over and over and over? In North Gaza, the place the IDF has been fighting to secure for the longest, Hamas just pops up one day in the same place they have many times before and so they have to raid the hospital again.

This is all according to Israel's own claims. If Israel's claims are true, then Hamas is one of those mystical enemies that pops up everywhere and is super strong and justifies all sorts of things to defeat, while also being weak and "diminished".

I think the truth is that Israel wants to destroy the health system in Gaza and drive the people out. Shifa hospital is basically rubble at this point.