back

by musha68k·2y ago·view on hn ↗
What aspects of modern warfare didn't Hideo Kojima foresee?

>Another combat veteran, now with a Pentagon agency working on these issues, told me that the AI developers he works with didn’t seem to understand some of the requirements for the technology’s military application. “I don’t know if AI, or the sensors that feed it for that matter, will ever be capable of spontaneity or recognizing spontaneity,” he said. He cited a DARPA experiment in which a squad of Marines defeated an AI-governed robot that had been trained to detect them simply by altering their physical profiles. Two walked inside a large cardboard box. Others somersaulted. One wore the branches of a fir tree. All were able to approach over open ground and touch the robot without detection.

Oh..

>I was curious about Palantir, whose stock indeed soared amid the 2023 AI frenzy. I had been told that the Israeli security sector’s AI systems might rely on Palantir’s technology. Furthermore, Shin Bet’s humiliating failure to predict the Hamas assault had not blunted the Israeli Defense Force’s appetite for the technology; the unceasing rain of bombs upon densely packed Gaza neighborhoods, according to a well-sourced report by Israeli reporter Yuval Abraham in +972 Magazine, was in fact partly controlled by an AI target-creation platform called the Gospel. The Gospel produces automatic recommendations for where to strike based on what the technology identifies as being connected with Hamas, such as the private home of a suspected rank-and-file member of the organization. It also calculates how many civilians, including women and children, would die in the process—which, as of this writing, amounted to at least twenty-two thousand people, some 70 percent of them women and children. One of Abraham’s intelligence sources termed the technology a “mass assassination factory.” Despite the high-tech gloss on the massacre, the result has been no different than the slaughter inflicted, with comparatively more primitive means, against Dresden and Tokyo during World War II.

4 comments
> at least twenty-two thousand people, some 70 percent of them women and children.

People are definitely dying and that includes civilians, but facts matter and a lot of these numbers are simply made up by Hamas. Here's some analysis that demonstrates that it's extremely unlikely Hamas's Gaza Health Ministry numbers are based in reality: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-he...

Stuff like almost perfectly linear growth of deaths over days and so on, take a look at the article.

This is also Hamas who claims that every person killed was a civilian. Try to find "number of Hamas combatants killed" in the Gaza Health Ministry numbers, they don't even count this. Isn't that a bit weird? Israel will tell you how many people killed were armed soldiers and how many were civilians, as most places will do.

I don't know why people believe the numbers coming from Hamas. I wish there were a more reliable source in the area, but believing Hamas because you have no other numbers to go on is plain stupid.

Absolutely ridiculous comparison.

The bombing of Dresden killed 25K people in 3days, not months of war.

The bombing of Tokyo killed 100K people in 1 day.

Furthermore, those cities were not where the military was actually operating. Hamas is operating its offensive throughout Gaza.

It is also 2024. One would think that reducing the number of civilian noncombatants killed would be in order since then, no?
Why would that be the case. If anything, the last 20 years have reinforced the idea that if enemy combatants simply embed themselves in civilian populations, they are virtually impossible to target without mass collateral damage.
Assuming you are unwilling to put in effort to identify enemy combatants or risk anything to do so, sure.
If the enemy is in a group of civilians then the only way to take him out is to fire into the group of civilians, there is no getting around that.
Assuming you are only willing to use aerial bombs, yes. A ground war would have been far more discriminate.
No no no no no no no, please no. Under no circumstances is that OK.

If the enemy is in a group of civilians, you use the police, arrest them, put them for a trial and send to prison.

If the enemy is in a group of civilians, and your immediate action is to bomb them along with the civilians, then you don’t value the lives of those civilians. At best you don’t care whether those civilians are alive or dead, and at worst you actually want those civilians dead. In the former case, you are doing a war crime, a crime against humanity, in the latter case you are doing a genocide and using the enemy as an excuse or justification.

In any case, there are plenty of ways to get around that. Unless the mass casualty is the point.

That would be great, but why would one think that?
It is also in the Middle East, where the only democracy there is surrounded on all sides and has no options left.
To call an apartheid a democracy and conflate the two risks giving the concept of democracy a bad reputation. Please don't do it.
This is an extreme position that is factually incorrect from almost every viewpoint it is read from.
22,000 people. 70% of them women and children, was it?

But it’s okay because Hamas exists?

What led you to this conclusion?

Why are you attempting to downplay the killing of so many people? You could just not do that and keep moving
Why is this comment being downvoted?
> Gospel

People are so desperately wanting to believe that AI will give them the revealed truth. Such systems should be named "Racist Uncle Dave" because they hallucinate some answer everytime they open their virtual mouths with some probability of being somewhat correct this time.

I’ve been hanging around some MBA types lately, and I’m coming to realize the product doesn’t actually have to perform to high specs like engineers would demand. Palantir is selling a “story” that their AI system magically decreases casualties and finds good targets, and it’s got firm numbers printed in the console (that could be completely wrong) but that is more convincing to MBA’s than any wishy intuition. So the MBA’s buy into the marketing, and the executors are buying into offloading their conscience.
please. the last people that would buy into any kind of marketing are MBAs because they actually study marketing among other things during their 2 years of obtaining an MBA.

there is no perfect product, I don't know how well Palantir AI works, but I would be surprised it doesn't work at all

You're right. MBA's are immune from marketing or sales tactics. Don't tell Mckinsey.
McKinsey hires top of the class people at top schools and pays them top dollar. If all they needed was marketing or sales, they could go to University of Nowhere and hire good looking tall people to do sales.
Psychological research shows that bulshitters are easiest to bullshit.
source? most psychological research doesn't replicate
Here's something about it.

https://www.psypost.org/new-study-suggests-you-can-bullshit-...

I'm sure you can find more.

"Bullshit receptivity and bullshitting frequency are both negatively associated with cognitive ability and analytic thinking."

from your link. Given that it's pretty hard to get into a top MBA program, I think we can put this nonsense to bed.

This is horrible news. Blurring the lines of accountability between people and software in the industry of war is a recipe for Armageddon. It's not only genocide laundering, which is atrocious enough. Unchecked, it will lead to a "stand your ground" type of situation where countries may strike first in anticipation of other actions. I fear for the future.
Not news, rumors with no shred of evidence.
> according to a well-sourced report by Israeli reporter Yuval Abraham in +972 Magazine, was in fact partly controlled by an AI target-creation platform called the Gospel

Don't try to "fake-news" it because it doesn't fit with your narrative.

Tech is being abused and combined with already authoritarian-fascist policies, is killing civilians en masse.

Have you read the report?
He doesn’t need to. We cited a well respected journalist in a well known publication.
The point remains: software is continually used as the scapegoat when things go wrong to shield human actors. Practitioners in our, admittedly young, field have shown very little appetite for taking any sort of responsibility expected of engineering professionals who inflict harm.
Best suggestion I ever saw for regulating autonomous software: make software usage in decision-making an aggravating factor in mistakes.
https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...

Here is the original report. Why are you so confident that there is no evidence? Not the curiosity we generally expect at HN.

The IDF openly touts their use of AI, moron.

https://www.idf.il/%D7%90%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%...

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously in multiple places, such as here and these others:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39582863

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39482220

No one is allowed to attack other users like that, regardless of how right they are or feel they are.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.