← Back to context

Comment by factorialboy

2 years ago

Can we please discuss the merits of this article — role of AI in future conflicts — without taking sides on any of the ongoing wars?

9 comments

factorialboy

Reply
harimau777  2 years ago

The issue as I see it is that the tools available don't just determine how a given war is fought, they also determine whether it is fought at all.

If Israel wasn't able to use tools like this, then it probably wouldn't be viable for them to identify much of Hamas (that's kind of the point of guerilla warfare). Since that would make it difficult to fight a war efficiently, they would be more likely to engage in diplomacy.

  • raxxorraxor  2 years ago

    Very doubtful. There is no room for any diplomacy after such an attack. It would be fought with more primitive weapons and the side with more bombs would prevail.

basil-rash  2 years ago

No, probably not. When the topic at hand is the selection criteria used to justify the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, your stance on whether the ones killing tens of thousands of civilians are justified in doing so is rather intrinsic.

mempko  2 years ago

Why not both? Taking a side does not mean you are clouded in judgement on this point.

random9749832  2 years ago

By calling it a war you already took a side. Maybe you are just ignorant, but that's hardly a good excuse.

gizmo686  2 years ago

I'm not sure that is possible. The nature and limitations of current AI technology means that it is almost impossible to talk about it without coming to certain conclusions about the party using it.

To put it bluntly, useing AI to decide on targets for lethal operations in unconsiounable given the current and forseable state of technology.

Come back to me when it can be trusted to make mortgage eligability questions without engaging in what would be blatantly illegal discrimination if not laundered by a computer algorithm.