Israel deploys remote-controlled robotic guns
abcnews.go.com
abcnews.go.com
- Operation of the gun can be used as training data for AI
- Eventually we won't know when the gun becomes completely guided by AI
Anyways, its a reasonably common sci-fi plot.
There is an entire branch of the IDF responsible for border sensor and control systems, and operation is done mostly by women.
Be truthful, you imagined a man being behind the trigger.
As I understand it the peace proposal of 2000 gave the Palestinians only 66% of the West Bank, with those displaced previously thus being deprived of the property from which they had been displaced.
Other proposals have been of the same sort, and I do not see how the Palestinian Authority could accept such an agreement in a way that is in accordance with their duty to those displaced.
"Israel would retain around 9% in the West Bank in exchange for 1% of land within the Green Line."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
The issue for the Palestinians is way way deeper than 9% of the 67 lines. Hammas doesn't hide its will to turn Israel proper into an Islamic state. PLO never actually forfeited the right of return which is considered a "sacred" right. If only the issue was as simple as offering 9% more percent.
I very strongly dislike Islam, but to say that Israel has done as it has due to the Muslims seems difficult to support, since Christian Palestinians do exist, even if they're few and have been treated in the precise same way as the Muslims despite their lack of association with terrorism etcetera.
I find it very intersting how AI can augment modern warfare. Drones + AI wins wars with minimal damage.
Or in Israel's case, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, maintain an apartheid system in a cost effective and efficient fashion. Kudos to them, they are pushing the state of the art here...
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
For whoever it's shooting at, it has the same psychological effect as a robot shooting.
Isn’t it objectively better than lethally-armed soldiers?
I'm not sure. I could see it going both ways: de-humanised killers unleashed, or a lack of fight-or-flight prompted panics. Absent information on that, though, non-lethal is better than lethal.
First, it dehumanizes the target. You're effectively playing a video game.
Second, it obfuscates the operator and makes culpability harder to assess.
However it did show that the separation of the executioner or torturer from the victim seemed to enable more viciousness.
Collateral Murder video leak from Wikileaks may better exhibit this effect.
I think you mean to say they're not AI, but they are still robotic.
No way ever ever ever that this could be used in a slightly different, more deadly manner.
Maybe they can even add sensors that shout "ow" when hit with rocks by children so they can document the reason for a use of force.
Israel has killed babies with tear gas and maimed children with sponge-tipped bullets before. This will continue as there wont be any consequences at all for the sadists operating these guns. Previously they could at least be caught on film and the outcry would force some kind of investigation. Now there is not even that and no one will be held responsible for maiming children. This is precisely why the Israeli academy should be boycotted. Because it helps the Israeli regime develop these kind of extremely disturbing weapons.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/7/10/palestinian-baby-di... https://www.dci-palestine.org/sponge_tipped_bullet_fired_by_...
Al Jazeera is literally Qatari government propaganda and there’s substantial evidence that DCI Palestine is tied to terrorist groups (https://www.reuters.com/world/finnish-christian-charity-cuts...). Don’t let propagandists blow tragic accidents out of proportion to scapegoat the Jews
This is odd though, right? Using tear gas in war is a war crime, for almost a hundred years now. It's very strange that we permit its use on civilian populations.
Guessing at intent, because obviously I wasn't involved in writing it, It was written to be as blanket as possible to avoid future uses of mustard gas or anything remotely like it, and to avoid quibbles of "Well it's not Exactly mustard gas which is the only thing explicitly banned".
Not saying that using tear gas on civilians is awesome and we should tolerate it, but tear gas isn't really at that level.
Now I'm actually wondering if pepper spray would be considered a war crime too
Remote controlled munitions, “less than lethal” or not, are deeply concerning no matter who operates them.
On the topic of safety of LLMs, from the discussion of the study:
“In one report [25], over 13% of the cases resulted in moderate to severe injuries with surgical intervention being required in 8% of the cases and another 18% sustaining a traumatic brain injury. ”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41314-022-00045-0
Not something I’m keen to see used anywhere. Much less in a robotic deployment situation.
edit: Please don't read this as an endorsement of violence of any kind. Thanks.
Similarly, be careful that you don't let decades of propaganda bias you towards thinking that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
If their actions and cause is just, I would think they would have no aversion to free and honest speech about it.
And, as a Jew: Israel is not “the Jews.” They’re a country, one that does not represent my interests, or the interests of millions of other Jews.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/this-is-a-mome...
I have no doubt whatsoever that New Zealand’s colonization was violent, inhumane, and broadly under-accounted for. This doesn’t somehow excuse Israel, which is unique by virtue of the recency of its founding and actions.
Besides, things don’t need to be special or unique to be wrong. Everything I’ve said would apply equally even if Israel does not stand out in its contemporary applications of violence (which it does), and still bears unique relevance by claiming to represent people like me (which it doesn’t) through blanket claims of antisemitism.
Israel's founding is 74 years now - that's not super recent. When does something like this becomes OK in your eyes? Or is simply exterminating 99% of the natives as was done in Australia, Canada, U.S and New Zealand what makes it OK? Not much of a problem if almost all of them are dead and the remains live in reservoirs right?
Israel as a state would like to be seen as western democracy and approached accordingly, which brings inevitable requirements on the behavior of any such state. What they do, and how they do it often leaves a lot to desire, or even hold some basic human rights threshold.
There is a reason why West bank is for decades often called 'biggest concentration camp in the western world'. How they often shoot to kill civilians throwing rocks (or unarmed female journalists), how they use these 'non-lethal' weapons in a very lethal way against innocent bystanders, and yes including babies. How these crimes go completely utterly unpunished due to rampart camaraderie (I mean former/future PM is former spec-ops team leader, so lots of things get a pass)
No. Israel is not unique in the horrors it inflicts upon innocent people. But, it is unique both in the recency of their colonialist project (the Palestinian's land was stolen from them, by the European settlers, within the lifetimes of some Palestinians), and in how Israel has weaponized historical European massacres of Jews to deflect criticism of its horrific practices. People should not give this a free pass.
It is not anti-Semitic to criticize, the state of Israel, the actions of its soldiers, its apartheid laws which grant rights to Jewish citizens that are not extended to non-jews (even the minority of Palestinians who did not flee their homes when the Jews forcibly were taking homes at gunpoint, and so are now considered Israeli citizens do not get the same rights as Jewish Israeli citizens), their extreme far-right government with theocratic influence which periodically engages in massacres of civilians, their racist Knesset (parliament) members who e.g., threatened one of the very few Palestinian-Israeli representatives with rape and murder for opposing their sadistic illegal (per international law) group punishment of Palestinian civilians. Remember when Netanyahu said, he was going to, "put the Palestinians on a diet"? This was a euphemism for Israel was going to starve them, since Israel controlls all borders into their open air prison-- sadistic?
Historically being horribly oppressed does not excuse horrible violent oppression of a population that had nothing to do with your own oppression. It would be like the Apache rounding up, at gunpoint, the Belgians into concentration camps, and settling into their former homes. Then, periodically engaging in massacres of unarmed Belgian civilians confined in the camps-- all the while referring to the historic massacres by the United States of Apache as an excuse for their violence against the Belgians (Yes, if it were Congolese, and not the Apache, they would have every justification to retaliate violently against Belgium, just as if world Jewry decided to retaliate against Germany, there would be justification, but to attack an innocent third party is simply not justifiable).
Only 10% of Israelis did not support Cast Lead, in a poll by Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper). So, sadly, it appears the massacres have the support of the vast majority of the settler population in spite of general knowledge of civilian (including child) casualties before the poll. Some might consider this sadistic too.
https://imeu.org/article/operation-cast-lead
https://www.deviantart.com/restorative/art/Israeli-Fashion-1...
https://www.haaretz.com/2009-01-15/ty-article/poll-shows-mos...
So this anecdote (one not large group of soldiers) proves somehow the majority of Israelis are sadists? That's not evidence, that's your opinion coupled with a nice story.
https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/
Many industry welding robots are also not exactly autonomous. There are bomb disposal robots that are remote controlled. We don't need to reserve the term for the T1000.
Furthermore there has already been at least one Mossad operation where they assassinated someone with a lethal remote controlled gun.
Edit: seems like the headline burried the lead, that they are using this for non leathal force crowd control, which i can understand how that could be controversial.
And to be fair (making both sides equally pissed off here), from the Palestinian perspective, the violent opposition is seen to be necessitated by the violent oppression and other injustices.
But for Israel it’s not just about their internal opposition. They are surrounded by enemies near and far interested in their violent demise. So of course they are highly motivated to develop effective weapons.
It would be one thing if these types of weapons were used for defense versus offense. Then selling off that offensive weapon to fund more offensive weapons. These weapons that were created as you said to combat violent opposition, enables Nation States and Authoritarian Regimes to target journalists and whistleblowers.