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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #642
rdtsc wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone else is a civilian that can only be directly targeted when and for as long as they directly participate in hostilities, such as by taking up arms, planning military operations, laying down mines, etc. There is some incredible magic that often happens: as soon as anyone is targeted and killed, they immediately transform from civilians to "collaborators", "terrorists", "militants" etc. Of course everything i…

On the flip side, in this war many of the Gaza combatants are either irregular forces or militants deliberately wearing civilian clothing. So if some guy in a track suit and flip-flops uses an anti tank grenade launcher, discards the empty tube, walks away, and gets lit up, then the next day the Internet is awash with videos of the “IDF murdering a civilian!” For reference, I think both sides are in the wrong in this…

> On the flip side, in this war many of the Gaza combatants are either irregular forces or militants deliberately wearing civilian clothing.

I'd be more inclined to believe that this was all it was, if the IDF didn't just blow up a convoy of foreign aid workers who had already received clearance and pre-registered their route with the IDF.

Sure, accidents happen, but it speaks volumes to the general level of diligence that goes into approving each strike, and this makes me very skeptical that other incidents that get coverage are simply attacks on plainclothed militants.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-israel-air-str...

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

#992

Post by trimethylpurine »

throwaway7351 wrote: post #425
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…

By the standards discussed in the article, anyone with a beef with Israel could justify targeting possible a majority of buildings in Israel. After all, most of the population is required to serve in the IDF.

The current justification is that children WILL be IDF. So, this would be an upgrade, no?

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

#993

Post by mistermann »

jakupovic wrote: post #226
mistermann wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuously throw enough plot twists and general stimulation at people and they'll never have the time to consider whether they're living in a simulation.

Interesting, how do we prove we don't live in a simulation or do we care enough to know?

I don't think it's possible to prove we do not, but proving that we do is much easier.

Let's start with a definition:

sim·u·la·tion /ˌsimyəˈlāSH(ə)n/ noun noun: simulation; plural noun: simulations

1. imitation of a situation or process

2. the action of pretending; deception

3. the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study.

#1 and #2 are pretty easy to prove, just look at journalism (arguably the main source of authoritative "plot twists and general stimulation", or many other broadly respected/worshipped disciplines, like "science" and their Theory of "Everything"), and the effect it has on people (hint: they typically believe it is an accurate representation of reality, you can tell because they will cite it as proof of their beliefs, and get angry if you do not accept it as proof).

One then runs into another problem: this will be rejected, because that "is not" a simulation, which brings us to yet another level of the simulation: language - the words we use to describe reality are objectively and obscenely incorrect, most of the time. Sometimes people will notice this, other times they will not - whether they do or not can be predicted with astonishing accuracy regardless of the person or their educational level based on whether it supports their pre-existing belief or not.

This basically ends up with a paradox: from most phenomenological perspectives (the main perspective, on a weighted causality basis), it is not possible for us to be living in a simulation, because of the simulation (culture, yet another level). It's basically bulletproof, a lot like like religion but even trickier and stronger.

> or do we care enough to know?

Consider the time and dedication it took to solve the many thousands of things that used to be a mystery - indeed, we do not care enough to take on solving this relatively simple problem. If you try to do it during a conversation, most people will object, usually passionately, based on memes like "We don't have time for that", "That's not what this place is for", etc. I'd even say that certain people in certain positions may like things just as they are, this state of affairs has high utility.

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

#994

Post by weebull »

sequoia wrote: post #396
readyplayeremma wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> B., a senior officer who used Lavender, echoed to +972 and Local Call that in the current war, officers were not required to independently review the AI system’s assessments, in order to save time and enable the mass production of human targets without hindrances. > “Everything was statistical, everything was neat — it was very dry,” B. said. He noted that this lack of supervision was permitted despite internal che…

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…

> > “There was no ‘zero-error’ policy. Mistakes were treated statistically,” said a source who used Lavender. > > What is the "zero-error" alternative approach for dropping bombs in a war, or firing rockets for that matter? I don't understand the implicit comparison between this approach to targeting and a hypothetical approach that allows war to be waged without any innocents dying or buildings being destroyed. This system should be compared to whatever the real alternative is when it comes to target selection.

I think you've misunderstood the "zero-error" statement. It's not saying "there must be zero errors", rather that "errors don't exist - only some level of collateral damage". Hence the follow up about things being viewed statistically.

They view it in the same way that you suggest they should - that there will always be deaths and the questions is whether the system leads to more or less of them.

Personally I view that as a very utilitarian argument when applied to a machine of war. It embeds the concept that some loss of innocent life is acceptable.

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

#996

Post by KETpXDDzR »

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.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

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

#998

Post by Seirdy »

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.

Said people are trusting the intel from the AI. Those who provide that intel possible should shoulder responsibility for its effects, or at least its efficacy.

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

#999

Post by 83 »

koutetsu wrote: post #429
83 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to be flippant, I'm genuinely curious. If everyone was as honorable as you and decided to stop working for the military industrial complex - do you think China and Russia would just sit back and say "That's cool - we didn't want Americas land/resources/overseas territories anyway" ?

This is like a thief saying that they steal something because otherwise another thief would steal it. What the parent is suggesting is that engineers around the world should agree to not make such systems similar to how doctors have the hippocratic oath. It may seem naive and can probably never prevent such systems from being built but I think it's worth a try. We have to collectively agree on systems we should not b…

If you are going to use a thief analogy at least make it accurate. Having a moral objection to defense is like objecting to doors and locks (defense against thieves) and so not only are you going to not work on anything lock related you are going to openly advocate no one else work on them or manufacture them as well, leaving us all at risk.

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

#1000

Post by megous »

goatlover wrote: post #816
throwaway7351 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the standards discussed in the article, anyone with a beef with Israel could justify targeting possible a majority of buildings in Israel. After all, most of the population is required to serve in the IDF.

What do you think all those rockets being intercepted by the Iron Dome are targeting?

Nothing, they are unguided and not targetable. They have almost 0 military value as far as targeting goes. They're "lucky" if they hit something outside of Gaza. You can see them being used for distraction/confusion (like on the morning of oct 7 in a mass firing), or as reprisals for IDF massacres (for deterrence, not working very well at that either), or for "we targeted grouping of soldiers" in Gaza envelope (usually unsuccessfully). Only thing they ever target successfully is the hearts and minds of Palestinians horrendously victimized by Israel, some of whom can feel that something is being done, I guess.

They're certainly not used to target any specific buildings in Israel. Only thing with targeting capability that Hamas ever repeatedly showed successfully used in videos is their home made Yassin-105 RPG shell and other RPGs. And these are used as short range defensive weapons, pretty much.

Post reply on HN