31–40 of 427 posts
You can't have a serious discussion of this bombing without addressing the information warfare component. To this day we don't know what actually happened . Between the general public and the facts, there are many middlemen, all with their own distorting factor: the IRGC; the US government; western press outlets such as the Guardian; and the people quoted by the press. IRGC is making claims that no other party can ve…
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…
Both the Washington Post and the Guardian articles agree that the system used here was Maven. 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/20241107699…
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
We know that it integrated Claude and Claude was deemed to be a supply chain risk just before the Iran war. So it is not a huge mental leap to assume what it is being used for.
You won't get an answer from Hegseth. This Guardian "article" is by a Substack blogger who also does not have answers.
Interesting article. Seems like AI-washing isn't just for layoffs anymore.
"the question that organised the coverage was whether Claude, a chatbot made by Anthropic, had selected the school as a target." 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of talk about AI use in warfare in general but in the case of this school most of the coverage I have seen suggested outdated information and procedures not properly followed.
It's definitely been reported before that Claude was used for Iran attacks, at the beginning of March or earlier: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/01/claude-an... Edit: Also, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop...
OK. The US probably also used telephones and Diet Coke.
Nothing cited said that Claude was selecting targets or informing target selection.
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
> 11,294 munitions in the first 16 days of the conflict, at a cost of approximately $26 billion.
Several detailed tables are in the link below.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme...
"Three clicks convert a data point on the map into a formal detection and move it into a targeting pipeline. These targets then move through columns representing different decision-making processes and rules of engagement. The system recommends how to strike each target – which aircraft, drone or missile to use, which weapon to pair with it – what the military calls a “course of action”. The officer selects from the…
I don't disagree there. But this is not a case of hallucination, and an existing website is a signal, not a determinant, of the real situation on the ground. However, you have made a very, very strong assumption that these targets were not carefully evaluated. One that does not seem to be present in TFA or any analysis that I've read. In fact, the article itself quotes those in the know who believe this should have been eliminated as a target.
"Three clicks convert a data point on the map into a formal detection and move it into a targeting pipeline. These targets then move through columns representing different decision-making processes and rules of engagement. The system recommends how to strike each target – which aircraft, drone or missile to use, which weapon to pair with it – what the military calls a “course of action”. The officer selects from the…
> Humans should have been double and triple checking every target by other means.
How practically would this happen? The US/Israel don't want people on the ground, and people on the ground is exactly the only way you can actually verify stuff like this, not every place in the world is on Google Maps or have a web presence at all, so the only realistic way to verify this would be to visually inspect it in person, something neither parties who started this war want to do.
Even better, don't make attacks against other soverign nations that don't pose an immediately and critical threat to you, and this whole conflict could have been avoided in the first place.
But no, the president has to be involved in some sort of child-trafficking scheme, so pulling the country into a war seemed preferable to being held responsible, and now we're here, arguing about fucking details that don't matter.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely been reported before that Claude was used for Iran attacks, at the beginning of March or earlier: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/01/claude-an... Edit: Also, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop...
"The U.S. used Anthropic's Claude to support Operation Epic Fury against Iran yesterday, sources familiar with the Pentagon's operations tell Axios." OK. The US probably also used telephones and Diet Coke. Nothing cited said that Claude was selecting targets or informing target selection.