I have been watching this story simmer for several days.
-
The events feel unreal but the deaths are very real. This is not a video game. This is not a text adventure.
@futurebird
IIRC, the CIA did something similar during the vietnam war.They were tracking movements of groups of people (because people who don't stay in place and especially go to places that were forcefully emptied are obviously viet cong).
Turns out, it was often elderly and children returning to where they formerly lived, for cultural reasons CIA analysts didn't care to learn about, like to honor their ancestors.
So the US send soldiers to execute old people and small children, because they were obviously viet cong.
-
Right wing war hawk commentators are saying that hitting a civilian target, a school filled with little girls is "good strategy, actually" we, the soft-handed peace-nicks are simply not smart enough to understand the strategic power of this action.
But, if the Department of war won't say it remains unclear if this atrocity is based on incompetence or dim-witted malice.
update: We can infer that they "missed"
https://shakedown.social/@AAronL1968/116193541496761440@futurebird "Strategic bombing" is exactly equivalent to "terrorist attack", except for the funding.
-
The impulse to use an LLM, and other shortcuts to make such decisions is indicative of a lack of serious interest in the details of the situation.
A level of study and interest that ought to be present for decisions that kill so many people.
I think that's why it matters.
-
Right wing war hawk commentators are saying that hitting a civilian target, a school filled with little girls is "good strategy, actually" we, the soft-handed peace-nicks are simply not smart enough to understand the strategic power of this action.
But, if the Department of war won't say it remains unclear if this atrocity is based on incompetence or dim-witted malice.
update: We can infer that they "missed"
https://shakedown.social/@AAronL1968/116193541496761440@futurebird I predict Whiskey Pete's demise will be swift and violent. You reap what you sow.
-
The impulse to use an LLM, and other shortcuts to make such decisions is indicative of a lack of serious interest in the details of the situation.
A level of study and interest that ought to be present for decisions that kill so many people.
I think that's why it matters.
But the problem with "serious study" of international politics is that when you learn more about a people, a culture you start to like them. You start to *become* like them.
Any tool that enables killing without such engagement is putting us on a fast track to atrocity.
Punch cards. Such a wonderful technology. (I collect punch cards, have always been fascinated by them). I can also never forget how they provided emotional distance for one of the greatest genocides.
-
@futurebird "Strategic bombing" is exactly equivalent to "terrorist attack", except for the funding.
@futurebird Also, even if we all pretend to switch off our living-animal brains and think like we're undead husks or alien ghouls for a while: We've known since WWII that terror bombing of civilians *doesn't even work*. When the Nazis firebombed England, English citizens started publicly demanding that the government *intensified* the war effort, and became more willing to put up with the miseries of the war economy.
Which makes sense, if we switch our living-animal brains back on: If some asshole just murdered your kids in their school, you're not usually going to demand your government sue for peace. You're going to do whatever you possibly can to see that asshole get treated to the worst Hell has to offer.
-
@gotofritz @futurebird the point is not whether the LLM selected a target that a human wouldn't have selected. The point is that an LLM was used for target selection. Even if the selection had been appropriate that would have been a game changer. The fact that it was inappropriate just highlights the problem, it's not *in itself* the problem, which is the manifestly reduced role of human decision making in lethal strikes.
-
But the problem with "serious study" of international politics is that when you learn more about a people, a culture you start to like them. You start to *become* like them.
Any tool that enables killing without such engagement is putting us on a fast track to atrocity.
Punch cards. Such a wonderful technology. (I collect punch cards, have always been fascinated by them). I can also never forget how they provided emotional distance for one of the greatest genocides.
Maybe if more people had to look at the city maps, if they had to read the local papers, and study the site there would have been more objections. Maybe you see a "street view" photo of the cross guard escorting the girls to class. Maybe you notice a paper sign in the window of a shop saying a new toy is in stock.
The target isn't just coordinates, it's a place where people live. People who don't care about international politics any more than the kids playing on your own block.
-
@RogerBW @futurebird related: people cheering on the iranian military after they hit AWS data centers:
https://bsky.app/profile/richard.wickedproblems.earth/post/3mgf7hc3vcs2s/quoteslike, they're not only noticing that it is valid & legal to target enemy data centers during wartime; there's also tons of people writing words to the effect of "dear iran, please hit more of our data centers."
@RogerBW @futurebird i used to think i was anti-war, but really, i was always just anti-aggressor.
When you live in the aggressor country, being anti-aggressor usually translates to political demands to stop fighting. This was true for the u.s.-initiated war in Vietnam; the u.s.-initiated war war in Iraq; the 2nd u.s.-initiated war in Iraq; etc.
But this time, i don't just want the fighting to stop; i also want the u.s. military to lose, because a "victory" would mean that evil has won.
-
How?
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@hacks4pancakes/116192434654015384
I have been watching this story simmer for several days. I've been wary of it. It fits too neatly into the criticisms and warnings many of us have been raising. But it's starting to look like, yes, they are using an LLM to make critical decisions.
At the same time I have heard parts of speeches from the US Secretary of War.* I have been dismayed by his shallow thinking. It doesn't help that his speeches also sound like they are also composed by an LLM.
*formerly Defense
@futurebird If AI was used then all the directors of the company (Anthropic?) should be tried for war crime.
-
@gotofritz @futurebird the point is not whether the LLM selected a target that a human wouldn't have selected. The point is that an LLM was used for target selection. Even if the selection had been appropriate that would have been a game changer. The fact that it was inappropriate just highlights the problem, it's not *in itself* the problem, which is the manifestly reduced role of human decision making in lethal strikes.
And what is the "benefit" of reducing the human friction in such decisions?
It's easier to kill 1000 people by pushing a button than it is to look in their eyes and do the deed with your own hands.
But the results are the same, and as a war crime the button pusher is just as guilty. (And the people who set up the button, knowing what it could enable are guilty too.)
-
@RogerBW @futurebird i used to think i was anti-war, but really, i was always just anti-aggressor.
When you live in the aggressor country, being anti-aggressor usually translates to political demands to stop fighting. This was true for the u.s.-initiated war in Vietnam; the u.s.-initiated war war in Iraq; the 2nd u.s.-initiated war in Iraq; etc.
But this time, i don't just want the fighting to stop; i also want the u.s. military to lose, because a "victory" would mean that evil has won.
@RogerBW @futurebird (to be clear, that's also what victory meant/would-have-meant for the previous mentioned wars; it's just that now i'm more aware of it.)
-
@futurebird If AI was used then all the directors of the company (Anthropic?) should be tried for war crime.
I was not kidding in this post. I will never forgive the people who did this.
|
https://sauropods.win/@futurebird/113866111349182003 -
Maybe if more people had to look at the city maps, if they had to read the local papers, and study the site there would have been more objections. Maybe you see a "street view" photo of the cross guard escorting the girls to class. Maybe you notice a paper sign in the window of a shop saying a new toy is in stock.
The target isn't just coordinates, it's a place where people live. People who don't care about international politics any more than the kids playing on your own block.
I see your point, but I don't think that is a failure of LLMs per se. They could have also used AI to make those checks. In fact we don't know what happened, for all we know they do use AI to confirm targets selected by humans and that particular one failed. Using this tragedy to bash LLMs (or punchcards) is missing the point. War is a bitch and no process is 100% error free.
Sadly we had lots of genocides and mass enslavement when tech was paper or clay based
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@hacks4pancakes/116192434654015384
I have been watching this story simmer for several days. I've been wary of it. It fits too neatly into the criticisms and warnings many of us have been raising. But it's starting to look like, yes, they are using an LLM to make critical decisions.
At the same time I have heard parts of speeches from the US Secretary of War.* I have been dismayed by his shallow thinking. It doesn't help that his speeches also sound like they are also composed by an LLM.
*formerly Defense
@futurebird If they did was their targeting overall more or less accurate? The war in Afghanistan was plagued by constant human casualties due to either malice or error.
-
I was not kidding in this post. I will never forgive the people who did this.
|
https://sauropods.win/@futurebird/113866111349182003@futurebird Agreed. And no-one should be able to claim, "It wasn't me, the AI did it".
-
@RogerBW @futurebird (to be clear, that's also what victory meant/would-have-meant for the previous mentioned wars; it's just that now i'm more aware of it.)
@JamesWidman @futurebird Also "just because side A are bad guys, which we can all agree on, that doesn't make side B good guys." That falsity is so fundamental to media presentations of any sort of conflict or disagreement that I don't think it's salvageable.
-
@gotofritz @futurebird a technology that enables even greater inhumanity at scale, that enables even more misleading guidance, that acts human and intelligent to garner trust and hype, that generates believable results that feel thoughtful and not just factual—that encourages people to disconnect further from the sources of that information and be less thoughtful—is not the same as a “Python script or a Google search.” It becomes something new and multiplying. The animosity is warranted and rational.
-
But the problem with "serious study" of international politics is that when you learn more about a people, a culture you start to like them. You start to *become* like them.
Any tool that enables killing without such engagement is putting us on a fast track to atrocity.
Punch cards. Such a wonderful technology. (I collect punch cards, have always been fascinated by them). I can also never forget how they provided emotional distance for one of the greatest genocides.
@futurebird @gotofritz the Jacquard loom was one of the Luddites' targets for destruction.
