AI got the blame for the Iran school bombing. The truth is more worrying

Post by tootie » Fri, Mar 27, 2026, 11:18 PM UTC

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #26

Lerc wrote: post #11

"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of talk about AI use in warfare in general but in the case of this school most of the coverage I have seen suggested outdated information and procedures not properly followed.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...

Post by cramsession » Fri, Mar 27, 2026, 11:33 PM UTC

ashdksnndck wrote: post #302

cramsession wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many American civilians have Iran killed? I would not consider Zionists to be civilians, they're literally living on stolen land.

You believe that anyone who lives on stolen land is not a citizen and deserves to be bombed? Americans live on stolen land too, as does much of the rest of the world population.

Post by esseph » Fri, Mar 27, 2026, 11:40 PM UTC

gambutin wrote: post #111

esseph wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I simply don’t understand why 150 people receive so much attention It's called motherfucking *accountability*

You conveniently deleted the second part of that sentence.

Post by dylan604 » Fri, Mar 27, 2026, 11:42 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #294

dylan604 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US claims that there was a threat of attack What the US claims is really not a strong source of anything, and I'm saying that as an American. The most compelling reasoning is that Israel was going to do something so US decision makers decided joining was the best worst decision, and I'm being very bend over backwards generous with that. Anything else is just excuses trying to cover it up. It seems obvious now t…

> If the US thought an Iranian retaliation from an Israeli strike would be to attack US assets A reasonable belief, because Iran in fact responded to the US+Israeli strikes by attacking US allies and even neutral nations like Qatar. And why should we doubt that Iran would have closed the Strait of Hormuz even if the US had not attacked, leaving Israel to attack alone? The strategic calculation (threaten the world eco…

Post by leereeves » Fri, Mar 27, 2026, 11:46 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #307

leereeves wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the US thought an Iranian retaliation from an Israeli strike would be to attack US assets A reasonable belief, because Iran in fact responded to the US+Israeli strikes by attacking US allies and even neutral nations like Qatar. And why should we doubt that Iran would have closed the Strait of Hormuz even if the US had not attacked, leaving Israel to attack alone? The strategic calculation (threaten the world eco…

But had the US not been part of the first strike, they could have applied much more diplomatic pressure to open the strait. As an active aggressor, they have no wiggle room. It might seem like semantics to you, but there's a huge difference diplomatically.