Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Is this meant to excuse the behavior of the Israeli military?
no, it's a reminder that there is more than one side to the story.
'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
831–840 of 1001 posts
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#832Never 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. Guns do kill people. That's their whole point.
I know roughly ~1000 people. Maybe 10 of them have the physical capability of killing someone, in case you don't know, it's not actually that easy to do it yourself.
Of those not all could mentally do it under anything but the most extreme of circumstances. 2, maybe 3 might be actually capable of ending a life under extreme circumstances.
With a gun probably, at a guess, ~400 - 700 could kill someone if they got anxious/scared enough is my bet. Even if I'm way off it's a lot more than without a gun. Couple of hundred at least. Not 2, or 3!
So yes, I'm sorry, guns definitely, 100% kill people.
And more people will absolutely kill someone if they possess a gun, than if the didn't. And by extension same is true if AI.
I'm interested how you even come up with that response? It's obviously factually and logically wrong. What makes you think it makes a reasonable argument to anyone?
Also, worth pointing out, thar AI in this case is insanely unfit for it's purpose (unlike a gun) and will have randomly killed lots of innocent people, even if the AI algorithm says otherwise.
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#833How do people that work on AI reconcile the fact that the product they're working on is going to be used to kill thousands of people with no recourse?
It seems like Israel is already bombing indiscriminately, with 35 000 killed (the majority of whom are women and children). Was AI used for these targets?
History is going show a similar story to when IBM helped facilitate the Holocaust, this genocide also has people working on tools that enable it; people "just doing their job."
Did AI target World Central Kitchen or the 200+ humanitarians, journalists, hostages and medics? This is just one aspect of Apartheid Israel's war crimes.
Apartheid Israel seems to be a pariah state, if it's not with their hacking or bombing consulates, it's with the military industrial complex relationship with the US. Do they think their actions are conducive to their well-being?
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#834Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's because actions speak louder than words. The bombings Gaza has suffered is worse than Dresden during WWII. There is a famine in north Gaza. 30 000+ Palestinians have been killed. There is live footage of Palestinians waving white flags but still getting sniped by Israeli soldiers. The same soldiers that laugh while blowing up mosques and running over corpses with their bulldozers. When someone show you who they…
Dresden wasn't full of guerilla army disguised as civilians, and there weren't even the tools to target specifics as we have today. Any civilian was evacuated from north Gaza 5 months ago, secured by IDF under Hamas attacks. Those who stayed there insist on sticking to a war zone and risk to be labeled as terrorists. blowing up mosques and houses is nothing compared to raping innocents with no one to defend them miles away. And while they hold hundreds of the same innocents underground and keep provoking Israel's destruction, I see no reason to care about their precious houses. Israel is judged by Western morals in a barbaric medieval war that it was dragged into.
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#835Years 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]
There seems to be little evidence to your statement “Israel seems to trying much harder to avoid civilian casualties than […]”. All estimates I have seen seem to indicate astonishing rates of civilian casualties, hence why Israel is getting so much criticism of basically indiscriminate killing in Gaza…
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#836 Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#837I know many people won't read past the headline, but please try to. This is the second paragraph: "In addition to talking about their use of the AI system, called Lavender, the intelligence sources claim that Israeli military officials permitted large numbers of Palestinian civilians to be killed, particularly during the early weeks and months of the conflict."
They permitted larger numbers of civilians being killed in the pursuit of terrorist barbarics who raped and murdered and dragged babies with their mothers into underground dungeons, and praised themselves for that while hiding between civilians.
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#838Never 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…
Depends on what "AI" means here. There is a spectrum of "we have a bunch of data in a database and some folks hand tuning queries" to "we built a deep learning network to predict XYZ." In the middle of that spectrum lie things like decision trees which provide explainable results.
It's the former, but from what I read in the article, a shady version of that is my take.
The computer basically appeared to randomise a high number of people to kill based on a very shallow dataset, weak data linking and a high desire to kill people who are Palestinian.
It's hard to read the details from the Guardian article and think of it as anything other than a randomised Israeli state murder machine. I can't envisage it being accurate to a point any reasonable person would accept it be used against someone they know, in any circumstances.
That it targeted 10's of thousands is utterly horrifying. That it was involved in any actual battleground scenario makes me think those involved in it's creation and sale are culpable.
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#839Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
Em. From the foreword:
> First, the interpretive Guidance is an expression solely of the ICRC's views. While international humanitarian law relating to the notion of direct participation in hostilities was examined over several years with a group of eminent legal experts, to whom the ICRC owes a huge debt of gratitude, the positions enunciated are the ICRC's alone. Second, while reflecting the ICRC's views, the interpretive Guidance is not and cannot be a text of a legally binding nature.
The purpose and of the Interpretive Guidance is to provide recommendations, as the document itself states, in an attempt to persuade states. It does not claim to be authoritative.
Re: 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza
#840Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guns/AI don't kill people. People do. If someone should be held responsible, it's the people that order the strikes.
Sorry. Guns do kill people. That's their whole point. I know roughly ~1000 people. Maybe 10 of them have the physical capability of killing someone, in case you don't know, it's not actually that easy to do it yourself. Of those not all could mentally do it under anything but the most extreme of circumstances. 2, maybe 3 might be actually capable of ending a life under extreme circumstances. With a gun probably, at a…
You dramatically underestimate the physical capability of the people you know. Humans are strong and humans are fragile. Every single one of them could kill another human in a pre-technological society.