Comment by Quanttek

There's even books written about it. Shame on IBM for this. I suspect in the future we'll have lots of books like this, for other companies enabling this genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

One of the reasons for the adoption of the Hollerith Tabulator in the great 1890 Census - arguably the birth of computing in the United States - was the increasing concern about . . let's say ethnics. To be frank, there were too many of them. "Japanese," "Chinese," "Negro," "mulatto," "quadroon," "octoroon," "negrito", etc etc. So in 1890, we needed dozens of new categories, and the old methods simply would not work. At least in terms of usable - actionable[1] - data in a quantitative setting.

Its success was so marked that it was immediately decided in 1893 to move a Tabulator to Ellis Island, to count the ethnics from the source with Hollerith's new technology. Herman Hollerith had great success in his own lifetime, the technology eventually becoming the core of the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company, otherwise known, a decade later, as International Business Machines.

The establishment of this clear process surrounding race - actual race law - was, believe it or not, pretty novel in Western history. A lot of old-timey race policy - like the relationship between a monarch and the Jews, or what exactly a visiting Muslim could or couldn't do (like sell and buy slaves cough Venice cough) - this race stuff was almost always very, ah, what we'd call "tribal knowledge". A Jew in the Middle Ages could have far greater rights and lifestyle than in later periods, but those rights were completely unpredictable; this was true to greater or lesser extent for many "outsiders" in the early European era. Even in 1900 American innovation in race law - based on "Science!" - was a new thing, and extremely exciting to the enthusiasts of folk movements[2] crisscrossing our entire civilization[3] at the time. One of those was Willy Heidinger, who established Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft to produce license-built Hollerith machines. World events interceded, however, and the German civil service infrastructure to run a census would not be present until much later . . 1933, in fact, when things would get very spicy indeed in the world of race "science".

And then, of course, cataclysm: the end of the European Order.

On the European continent, a debt to truth was paid. A hundred million dead or maimed, nations wrecked, a whole world - a weltanschauung - burnt down to the foundations - below the foundations. But elsewhere - like in the New World - the lesson was not as stark. And in yet other places the inverse lesson was learned: once you determine a person is not a person, you must brutalize yourself and your population immediately, before the soon-to-be-unpeople realizes that the struggle is existential.

Let's wrap this up.

What 20th century Race Science/Race Law were trying to do was make sense of something as complicated as human culture but using the sciences they understood: 19th century statistics, the physics of iron and steam. Those were the sciences with the capital backing, so - of course! - those were the only science that mattered. Today, we're looking at another complex element of the human experience - human language, human consciousness - and again, we're looking at it through the science that's got the most capital backing it: computation. That's how "text" somehow, incredibly, came to contain "language". Or how "scarcity" was represented by "money" - as if there were any N-dimensional descriptions that could adequately vectorize either of those concepts.

Ultimately, when you really dig yourself into these sorts of artificial - if not downright dishonest - "science-y" establishments, when you start imposing them on the world, you don't break out of them easily. Or without damage. The people making use of your LLM widget do not understand the math - all they know, like the race science of previous centuries - is that it's Science-y. It might as well be wearing a Mitre and Crosier.

[1] What those actions were, is a subject for another post. Probably inside a soon-to-be-flagged topic.

[2] The American example in race law was also very exciting to a certain Mr. Adolf Hitler, as well. You can read all about it in Mein Kampf. Hitler's attitude towards America is really fascinating stuff, but an entirely other subject.

[3] And beyond! Ethnonationalism spread like fire, as colonized peoples realized this could be their big ticket towards peerage in the European age.

[flagged]

IBM decided who was jewish, roma, socialist, and so on? IBM:s machines found these people and brought them to the attention of genocidal authorities?

In Norway it is rather the other way:

We all know (if we stop and think) that a person can be both a teacher and a terrorist.

But according to media here almost every victim except top Hamas brass seems to be referred to by their whatever else they were besides terrorists and the terrorists (or even just soldier) part get hushed down.

Another one is when you label any 15+ year old male as "military age" and treat them as combatants.

On the flip side, in this war many of the Gaza combatants are either irregular forces or militants deliberately wearing civilian clothing.

So if some guy in a track suit and flip-flops uses an anti tank grenade launcher, discards the empty tube, walks away, and gets lit up, then the next day the Internet is awash with videos of the “IDF murdering a civilian!”

For reference, I think both sides are in the wrong in this conflict, and Israel more than Gaza.

However, the Internet is full of armchair international law experts that are being played like a fiddle by Hamas’ propaganda arm.

Speaking of international laws of combat: no protections apply to non-uniformed combatants pretending to be civilians. None. They can be tortured, executed on the spot, whatever.

If you want protections to apply to you, then wear a uniform or never go anywhere near a gun.

I read that article and feel your interpretation is very misleading/wrong.

The Guardian article makes it clear prior to those denials that those higher-up appear to not to care how accurate it is and appear to be making a conscious choice to accept the fact it is highly flawed on the basis that it might kill some of whom they would legitimately claim as valid targets.

It's clear from the operational details discussed in the article the critical target number is largely number of kills, regardless of whether they are any actual material threat, or not.

Cull predominantly the male population and their family members, not assassinate active threats is the overall impression I got of the Israeli strategy.

I must add that anyone claiming the use of AI and inference models in this way is in anyway justifiable needs to seek help. The claim of 90% accuracy is almost certainly over claiming by over 100%.

20 second turnaround from target acquisition to strikes seems to guarantee it's become the latter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue

"I'm sure that's what was intended"

Intended by who? You don't kill 13,000 children by accident.

Ideally, that would be "Computer says we shouldn't kill these people, let's not".

[flagged]

Both Hamas and Hezbollah are routinely doing exactly that.

The current justification is that children WILL be IDF. So, this would be an upgrade, no?

What do you think all those rockets being intercepted by the Iron Dome are targeting?

But presumably if you can target the building e.g. at night when nobody is there, that's preferable to targeting it during the day when there may be more civilian workers.

It's also an incentive to use it - accountability evasion.

You can target the manufacturing plants since they are military objectives but you cannot target the workers. If any war-sustaining activity would make you, as a person, a target, pretty much anyone could be bombed: farmers, bankers, power plant engineers, truck drivers, ...

For a source, you can check out the Red Cross document I linked. Specifically, Ctrl+F for "continuous combat function" and read the commentary on recommendation V. The Guidance is considered authoritative in legal circles.

In the case of Hamas, the US and Israel are the primary weapon manufacturer, as unexploded ordinance is the primary source of their explosives.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/hamas-is-using-unexplo...

This is a very 'anti-war' opinion by a lawyer affiliated with the Red Cross, not some sort of treaty or other convention. As an example, the Geneva Convention's scope of protection is much narrower.

> Hamas leadership has stripped its civilian population of the protections of international law.

You completely lose any credibility with this statement. Civilians can't be "stripped" of protections of international law.

An entire civilian population cannot be stripped of its protections of international law. This type of dehumanising rhetoric is the exact filth that leads to genocide and other atrocities (as we can see happening live in recent months).

It was upgraded to target politician's families, already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Haniyeh

Always interesting to me how western diplomats do not just right out reject bombing of diplomatic buildings, but search for stupid justifications, if it's "others" being bombed and not their team.

Or politicians who don't reject targeting of other politicians' families for killing, when it's the politicians they "don't like" or whatever, and even tacitly support it. Or who don't say a word when a hospital is attacked and hundreds of people murdered in it over several weeks, and ultimately destroyed, but blab something about right to self-defence constantly, or IHL which according to legal experts is used mostly to enable mass murder, not to stop it. Kinda paradoxical for a law that was meant to prevent needless suffering.

It's like all these people have a death wish, because they're setting standards for future wars. And there will be future wars, even in Europe. Anyway, I lost all respect for all the idiot politicians I sadly voted for, who justify day and night the murder of medics, whole families, children, starvation, etc., when it's "the other", and are all up in arms when it's "us". I certainly won't be fighting for any of them, when the war comes here. They have 0 standards. I'll let them die according to their wishes and standards.

This is demonstrably untrue (it happens of course, but is not ubiquitous as comabt footage demonstrates) and in any case does not obviate the LOAC.

I am okay with the notion that war is dirty and that Hamas will try to pretend to be civilians or whatever. I have some questions:

- if the weapons always wait for them at target locations, who is transporting the weapons at any given target location and why is that not the focus?

- if we know they try to use infrastructure like hospitals, the IDF clearly knows where Hamas is aiming to shelter in, why not militarily occupy hospitals but then otherwise allow them to run without delay vs sniping anyone who shows up in a window?

- how is it possible the IDF allowed premature babies to die in their incubators once medical staff left a hospital in Gaza (aka unoccupied facility for IDF to sweep through), such that once medical staff returned they were presented with their rotting bodies left untouched in the incubators?

- how were Israeli unarmed civilians waving white t-shirts get mistaken for armed Hamas combatants and shot dead when trying to escape from their capture?

- how did the World Kitchen convoy, which had provided the IDF their route and time and coordinates with clearly labeled trucks, get shot with targeted missiles from above?

And you can justify any kind of civillian killing and genocide just like this.

Anyone can do anything, lets just target them all.

> It is very convenient to criticize it when you're not in it

Israel 'criticised' Hamas for their monstrous attack six months ago, started a war over it. Perhaps you're saying Israel should have just accepted it?

You know, perhaps this whole mess Israel is now involved in is a product of its own behaviour, and killing of loads more Palestinians is not likely to bring peace but further hate and evil.

There seems to be little evidence to your statement “Israel seems to trying much harder to avoid civilian casualties than […]”. All estimates I have seen seem to indicate astonishing rates of civilian casualties, hence why Israel is getting so much criticism of basically indiscriminate killing in Gaza…

Even though you may not be necessarily wrong on how little regard those armies in those previous wars (and indeed all warring parties in those wars to some extent) had for the civilian population, the situation is Gaza is made so much more drastic because there’s already nowhere for the (already displaced for decades) population to go amid all this assault and bombing (not to mention the widespread starving and all those other factors, which combined led to the “genocide” claim levied by some). That’s also a reason why all western countries are trying to dissuade Israel from the Rafat assault.

Also, we have the idea that human beings are supposed to learn from those previous tragedies and do better, and that we’re in a much more civilized, peaceful and prosperous place than before, so it’s likely a disillusion and horror for a lot of people to see such a nightmarish scenario unfolding again in 2023. Some intrinsic parts about human nature and human societies will never change unfortunately.

[flagged]

> Ai flagging targets sure beats the cold impunity of the strategic air campaign during wwii and vietnam by far.

Only on a single iteration of a Nash game.

If it tempts the politicians and generals to target larger areas because of the lower costs… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

>civilians as shields

For as much as the IOF likes to market this expression, I only ever see them do it in the actual sense, like chaining literal 12 year-olds to the front of armored vehicles

https://www.btselem.org/ota/104/all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E...

[flagged]

Is this meant to excuse the behavior of the Israeli military?

Yes, if you think about actions rather than labels it makes sense. Otherwise every office worker in Israel would be a legitimate target too.

As a target for assassination? Yeah.

It makes sense. Blowing up a military HQ with a clerk in it makes sense. Blowing up a clerk walking on the sidewalk seems like a wasted effort.

You can come up with all sorts of justifications for anything. At the end of the day, time and time again, over the top escalation usually hurts the stronger party. Asymmetrical warfare doesn’t garner sympathy or military advantages to the stronger party.