US Military pulls the trigger, uses AI to target air strikes
theregister.com
theregister.com
If anyone is looking for a serious dive into this topic I’d highly recommend starting here https://youtu.be/1-0L5Wv86fQ?
How many times have you pushed to production skipping the final review because all tests passed anyway only for it to fail?
edit: the point is you choose when to deploy, eg shoot.
If it breaks on my work hours, np, i will revert the deployment. Good luck getting me to revert anything on a weekend.
it would depend on how the liability flows when the target is wrong. Will the AI cover the ass of the previous person who would've had to vet it? Or will the ultimate responsibility and therefore, liability, lay with a person?
This is the US.
For example the Captain USS Vincennes got promoted after he ordered the shooting down of a commercial airliner by mistake.
What rank was Captain Rogers promoted to after the incident?
I know that people in the military are very familiar with problems like that so I think the main concern here is making sure that vendors don’t successfully oversell their products’ capabilities.
If the military had said "statistical inference using modern Big Data methods" that would have the following advantages:
- honesty
- officers' expectations would be more tempered and reasonable
- public outrage would be more tempered and reasonable
- military tech grifters have their BS more easily called out
- AI tech grifters have to look in the mirror and accept this is what their algorithm is
- AI journalism grifters get less clicks
- Hacker News conversations indulge less navel-gazing speculation about Skynet>If the military had said "statistical inference using modern Big Data methods"
If this is what I saw the military use I would be upset at the blatant attempt at being misleading. In my mind I would convert it back to AI. It's equivalent to saying "I didn't drive drunk, I got here using carnot-like cycles after injesting social communication enhancing drugs".
My general experience is that AI is just beyond what somebody understands and when they understand how it works they just use a more specific wording.
I'm not saying iraq wasn't a shit show, but for what it's worth, this stuff is very carefully reviewed and is not done quickly.
This is a serious failure of controls that warranted direct attention and the apology of the president. imo this is moreso evidence that the US takes its controls seriously rather than frivolously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...
I'm not interested in following your link.
Let's not dismiss the propaganda factor here.
No one caring about their livelihood in the west will ever be digging too deep into US/NATO totally-not-war-crimes-just-collateral-shit-happens-you-know, as well as no one will be arguing Russia's case the same way Ukraine's attacks over Belgorod Region and office buildings in Moscow are excused with "this missile/drone was on its way to a military target, but was shot down over civilians heads by air defense".
Assange's case is a very illustrative example what happens when something gets loud enough to actually matter and disrupt the image of righteousness.
It's good to learn about the past, but it doesn't actually tell you anything about how modern western military operations actually work. You'll always be able to cherry pick random platoons doing heinous shit because humans are still humans. Just because you are from the west does not mean you are better than anyone else.
As long it's for the greater good its ok right? /s
America is far from the only reason for the War is Gaza. It’s a major contributor to Israel’s war machine, but it’s also one to Palestinian aid.
The only one on the SC. Lots of countries have violated UN resolutions, including practically every member of the SC. This is far from evidence of being the sole reason for anything.
The SCs job is to secure global security and peace. The US is doing the absolute opposite.
If we don’t even take the first step of trying to stop it we are complicit and the primary reason it is ongoing.
But you're getting off track here. We were discussing the total package of US support for Israel as a driving factor in the current, grotesque horror we are all witnessing.
And it is the main driving factor. If that support were to vanish, Israel's expansionist adventures in Gaza and the West Bank would grind to a halt in very short order indeed.
But it's clearly the most important. To an extent that it dominates all other factors.
And to substantiate that, look at the ratio of military to civilian deaths. In modern warfare, America’s numbers are incredibly low. Our problem isn’t that we fight brutally, but that we get pulled into fights a lot.
Which you know about because it became subject to protests and litigation in America and open Congressional scrutiny. (It remains a travesty there has been no legal action in its respect.)
I'm not saying America doesn't do terrible things. Just that the rate at which it does so is dramatically lower than others. If you had to face military action from a foreign power, America is the best of the lot. Of course, that doesn't change that you'd rather not face military action from any foreign power.
As for your second point, your last statement is what matters. The us has engaged in more foreign military actions than any other nation since WW2. Who cares if they mask the brutality behind terms like precision strikes and collateral damage. We do terrible things and we do them frequently, usually for no benefit to anyone other than a select few. Everything you said is just trying to rationalize the fact we are the most aggressive country on the earth.
Specific criteria are classified, but the U.S. military systematizes the four LOAC principles: military necessity, distinction, proportionality, no unnecessary suffering.
Positive identification goes only to the first two principles, and—while I don't know specifics—the DoD's "human in the loop not on the loop" AI philosophy makes me think that AI won't satisfy PID by itself. In addition to that, all munitions targets would have to meet CDE in accordance with CJCSI 3160.01. In my experience, there is typically a CDE expert as well as a lawyer involved in every targeting decision.
At the end of the day war is a racket, the prescence of the lawyer detailing what he did below should only raise everyone’s BS meter to “overload.”
I’m not sure if it was a million we killed or 600k or maybe less but the defense of “many of those weren’t us, it’s was subsequent totally unrelated non us involved” is also a very lawyerly statement. Like, we only lit this one tree on fire maaaannn, we didn’t light the whole damn neighborhood!
Let us not forget the Wikileaks either as a self purported hacker community. 12 unarmed men gleefully murdered by an Apache helicopter (including 2 ap reporters). [1]
Let’s also not forget Madeleine Albright defending the death of 1/2million Iraq children in 1996. When asked by 60 Minutes reporter Lesley Stahl "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?", Albright replied "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." [2]
For what it’s worth, I am a US patriot, I just don’t excuse our BS behavior as I’ve been sold the whole “we are very careful, we have lawyers and 2ndary explosion analysts” line one too many times.
The price is always worth it to certain people and industries. I’m not ragging on the lawyer below, I hope he was able to do some good. But it’s all bullshit, from start/middle/end (Afghanistan withdrawal, you should have seen the look on vets faces as they realized every sacrifice, buddy lost, person killed was completely and totally pointless, but don’t worry we have a national suicide call line)
We are saying the US military, as an organization, takes targeting decisions seriously and slowly.
Never. Because like the gate guard in "Zero Dark Thirty" I understand that process only works if you do it all the time.
Alternative: “US military pulls the trigger, implements AI-assisted pattern matching for military target acquisition”
I even kept their “pulls trigger” pun.
> The newly-unveiled ATR feature is a technological breakthrough, enabling SPICE-250 to effectively learn the specific target characteristics ahead of the strike, using advanced AI and deep-learning technologies.
More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39531348
Are they using LLM for this as well? Then of coruse it's going to be hard. I don't understand why many working with AI refuses to use an AI that's good for this. CSP solvers! There are some papers about using them for drone making flight paths.
Wired: ...
Expired: ...