11–20 of 427 posts
This article is the first I have seen mention of Claude in relation to this specific incident. There's been plenty of talk about AI use in warfare in general but in the case of this school most of the coverage I have seen suggested outdated information and procedures not properly followed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop...
This unknown Guardian contributor writes a missive against "Luddites" while using the typical AI booster arguments that always turn around anti AI arguments.
Just like two five year olds: "You have a big nose." "No, you have a big nose."
We learn from this clown that anti AI people suffer from AI psychosis because they are reading WaPo and Reuters.
The Guardian carrying water for the AI industry. The distinction between Maven and Claude is futile. We get that Maven is Palantir, but it integrates Claude: https://www.reuters.com/technology/palantir-faces-challenge-... Going into a generic rant about anti-AI people after missing sources and believing the Department of War is just extremely poor journalism from the newspaper that destroyed evidence after a command…
They've now burnt though almost ONE THOUSAND of those
They cost $4 million each, so that's another $4 BILLION that has to be replaced too
Imagine several more months of that or even through 2029
WaPO writes that Claude selected targets: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop... This unknown Guardian contributor writes a missive against "Luddites" while using the typical AI booster arguments that always turn around anti AI arguments. Just like two five year olds: "You have a big nose." "No, you have a big nose." We learn from this clown that anti AI people suffer from AI psychosis becaus…
The key sentence in that Washington Post article appears to be:
> The Pentagon began to integrate Anthropic’s Claude chatbot into Maven in late 2024, according to public announcements.
As far as I can tell this is the public announcement - a press release from November 2024: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241107699415/en/Ant...
> Anthropic and Palantir Technologies Inc. (NYSE: PLTR) today announced a partnership with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to provide U.S. intelligence and defense agencies access to the Claude 3 and 3.5 family of models on AWS. This partnership allows for an integrated suite of technology to operationalize the use of Claude within Palantir’s AI Platform (AIP) while leveraging the security, agility, flexibility, and sustainability benefits provided by AWS.
The Guardian carrying water for the AI industry. The distinction between Maven and Claude is futile. We get that Maven is Palantir, but it integrates Claude: https://www.reuters.com/technology/palantir-faces-challenge-... Going into a generic rant about anti-AI people after missing sources and believing the Department of War is just extremely poor journalism from the newspaper that destroyed evidence after a command…
You know how that was done with a Tomahawk They've now burnt though almost ONE THOUSAND of those They cost $4 million each, so that's another $4 BILLION that has to be replaced too Imagine several more months of that or even through 2029
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-uses-h...
You know how that was done with a Tomahawk They've now burnt though almost ONE THOUSAND of those They cost $4 million each, so that's another $4 BILLION that has to be replaced too Imagine several more months of that or even through 2029
Unfortunately I can very well imagine several more months and years of this. We are still fighting a forever war that started in 2001. This is all a generation of Americans will know, and that is sad.
IRGC is making claims that no other party can verify first-hand. Everything from the number of explosions, the extent of the physical damage, the number of wounded and dead, the number of civilians wounded and dead - these are all unverified claims and should be treated as such. Not only is the IRGC obviously biased and incentivized to maximize media pressure on the US and Israel: they are known for information warfare of exactly this nature. To take their statements at face value, and present them as established facts in the opening paragraph, as this article does, is journalistic malpractice.
Again, the basic facts on the ground are not known, yes all parties are projecting narratives with a certainty that we should all be suspicious of.
Without this stable foundation of knowing what actually happened, and why, the very premise of this article collapses on itself.
EDIT: the flurry of responses to this post illustrate the problem. It's difficult to even have a respectful, fact-driven discussion on this topic, because everyone is tempted (and encouraged) to rush to their political battle stations. Nobody wants to discuss information warfare, because they're too busy engaging in it. I think that's worrying and problematic. No matter which "side" you're on, it should be possible to distinguish what is known and what is not; and implementing basic information hygiene. Or do you think you are uniquely immune to disinformation?