These sorts of arguments come up constantly in these discussions, and are laughable. More efficient targeting just means more strikes. And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway...
Maybe not the former, but certainly the latter if it meant a reduction in alternatives like carpet bombing, etc.
In World War II, the military would drop thousands of bombs over a wide area in the hope that a few would land on a German ball bearing factory. Now that they have more precise weapons, they don't need to do that anymore to accomplish similar missions. If the military feels it needs to smash something small, they'll use a big, oversize hammer if they don't have a small one available. They don't give up and go home.
> More efficient targeting just means more strikes.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how you could reasonably be so certain about that.
> And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway...
As is de rigueur for military targeting.
I think that's a mischaracterization that's important to correct in the name of accuracy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project...:
> The polarized debate about Google and the military may leave out some nuances. Better analysis of drone imagery could reduce civilian casualties by improving operators’ ability to find and recognize terrorists.
Also, a lack of "AI"-based image analysis hasn't stopped the US military from carrying out airstrikes with drones, and denying them better analysis tools is unlikely to cause them to reduce their frequency. The US military tries to avoid civilian casualties while still performing its mission, so giving it the tools to do so could arguably prevent civilian noncombatant deaths.