The use of AI and the authorisation to kill civilians are unrelated parts of this story. Nowhere does it mention that the AI is being used to justify killing of civilians.
Really? I guess they're just "following orders" from the AI then. What a shameful response, if Russia did this or if the roles were reversed you'd be appalled.
There are pretty clearly cases where non-combatant deaths in war are necessary -- for example if you are in a total war situation as in WWII.
People can and do argue about the morality of the Tokyo firebombings and Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki where it was largely purely civilian populations in cities that were attacked, but I think it's _fairly_ non-controversial that in a total war that industrial sites and weapons manufacturing facilities and so on are valid targets in a war situation, and they are generally staffed by non-combatants.
The rule in the geneva conventions is:
"In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."
Which encompasses quite a large category of non-combatants that are likely to be in the area of those "objects".
edit: not making any kind of judgement or statement at all about this particular situation -- just clarifying in general the rules of war involving non-combatants.
I disagree with you. There is no justification for death.
1) Where do you draw the line?
2) At what number does that one become two?
3) how long do you think until AI is justified to start killing those single digit persons?
4) What if that one person is you? (this is not that hard to imagine, suppose a fictitious near future where everyone that contributed to some extinction event is deemed killable: AI development, global warming, failed to do some recycling, etc).
Wild that this is still a controversial statement on HN, which is otherwise rather forward thinking.
The use of AI and the authorisation to kill civilians are unrelated parts of this story. Nowhere does it mention that the AI is being used to justify killing of civilians.
Yeah, because they need to spell out what they're trying to have you infer.
[flagged]
Really? I guess they're just "following orders" from the AI then. What a shameful response, if Russia did this or if the roles were reversed you'd be appalled.
There are pretty clearly cases where non-combatant deaths in war are necessary -- for example if you are in a total war situation as in WWII.
People can and do argue about the morality of the Tokyo firebombings and Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki where it was largely purely civilian populations in cities that were attacked, but I think it's _fairly_ non-controversial that in a total war that industrial sites and weapons manufacturing facilities and so on are valid targets in a war situation, and they are generally staffed by non-combatants.
The rule in the geneva conventions is: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."
Which encompasses quite a large category of non-combatants that are likely to be in the area of those "objects".
edit: not making any kind of judgement or statement at all about this particular situation -- just clarifying in general the rules of war involving non-combatants.
4 replies →
When you look at the map of Gaza, it looks like the AI must have told them to bomb every single house that was still standing.
Could you say more?
There is no justification for killing.
There are some justifications for killing. Like if you can save many lives by killing one. But in general, I agree with you.
I disagree with you. There is no justification for death.
1) Where do you draw the line? 2) At what number does that one become two? 3) how long do you think until AI is justified to start killing those single digit persons?
4) What if that one person is you? (this is not that hard to imagine, suppose a fictitious near future where everyone that contributed to some extinction event is deemed killable: AI development, global warming, failed to do some recycling, etc).
3 replies →
This is not what the article is about, and not what AI was being used for.
Read between the lines, they're trying to blame their AI for the civilian casualties.