https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai...
Although in that article, most of the horrors are coming from the human operators - there’s what comes off as a pretty strong disinterest in finding reasons to distrust the machine.
It was an excellent and detailed piece on the various systems, and their use by Israel in the Gaza conflict.
>> In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants.
Needs no comment and basically sums up the war.
> "You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people"
This, regarding the bombing houses full of civilians, because an infantryman might have been inside. This, in a statement by somebody who is critical of the AI effort. By being more concerned at the loss of munitions; the true basis of the calculation is revealed. The IDF -- even those members who are actively critical of it -- views its enemies not as humans, but as vermin to be exterminated. This is genocide, pure and simple.
Btw, the proportionality requirement in the law of armed conflict relates civilian casualties not with military casualties but rather the military advantage gained. The military advantages of killing a single low-level Hamas combatant are rather limited, and thus the room for civilian casualties should be rather limited as well.
There’s a whole lot of wiggle room in that phrase.
> The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
The way it's worded is to prevent destroying civilian targets for no military gain.
There is no justification in the current situation in Gaza to justify anything close to the numbers quoted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gospel
probably from the Greek
Now you might be correct there is some mis-associating from a purely academic standpoint and that actually makes it even more interesting the IDF used it as a name, considering the other name is “The Gospel”. Isn’t the message to Christians - “you’re idiots and we kill our enemies using AI systems named to make fun of you”?
Perhaps it's a Catholic or Protestant thing, but, if so, I don't know where it comes from. I used to love reading the New Testament and I really don't remember any mention of lavender at all. It could be an Old Testament thing though, so, to be fair, more Jewish than Christian. In Greek Orthodox practice the aromatic of choice is frankincense (every church smells of it because the priests burn it in long-chained incense burners that they swing wildly left and right during liturgy), and, separately, myrrh (although that's associated with death and funerals, I guess). Lavender we mainly use to keep moths off clothes, to be honest. I got small muslin-wrapped packets of it in my closet.
I also am not sure why Israelis would want to send a message to Christians about an AI system used to kill mainly Muslims. I mean, in practice, the Israelis enemies are Arabs who tend to be Muslim, so why would they send a message to Christians?
In any case, can you please share some of the information you found in your quick googling? I'm curious to see what people say. I had a quick look online also and couldn't really find anything specific. The wikipedia page on lavender also lists no specific relation with Christianity, as opposed e.g. for myrrh and frankincense.
One hypothesis is a confusing Spikenard, here is what GPT4 says about that:
> Yes, there can be some confusion between spikenard and lavender, partly due to historical naming conventions and translations of ancient texts. The confusion often stems from the use of the term "nard" or "spikenard" in historical texts, including the Bible, and how it has been interpreted or translated over the centuries. > Spikenard (Nardostachys jatamansi) and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) are indeed different plants, both botanically and in terms of their historical and cultural significance. However, the confusion might arise because both were used in ancient times for their aromatic properties and were considered valuable for perfumes, medicinal purposes, and religious rituals.The term "nard" comes from the Sanskrit word "narada," while "spikenard" refers specifically to Nardostachys jatamansi. The translation and interpretation of ancient texts, like the Bible, have sometimes led to a blending of these plant identities, especially when the specific botanical knowledge of the original texts was not fully understood or when names were translated in ways that did not precisely match the botanical realities.Additionally, the historical trade of these substances, along with others, through ancient markets might have contributed to the blending of their identities. Merchants and consumers across different cultures might not have always distinguished clearly between the two, especially given the value placed on aromatic herbs and oils in ancient times for both practical and symbolic uses.Despite these confusions, modern botanical and historical scholarship distinguishes clearly between spikenard and lavender, recognizing their unique characteristics and the distinct roles they have played in history and tradition.
As far as the message from IDF, my understanding is the true believers of Orthodox Judaism are actually both anti-muslim and anti-christian. The hidden message I take is “you Christians are fools, easily tricked, we have tricked you also, we laugh at you behind your back, and desecrate your beliefs as our weapons of war”.
>> As far as the message from IDF, my understanding is the true believers of Orthodox Judaism are actually both anti-muslim and anti-christian. The hidden message I take is “you Christians are fools, easily tricked, we have tricked you also, we laugh at you behind your back, and desecrate your beliefs as our weapons of war”.
Isn't that just a little bit too much to infer from a single word? If they wanted to send a message to Christians, why not choose something obvious like "Cross" or "Golgotha" or "Herod"?
I don’t think it’s too much to infer, for me it’s extremely obvious, especially considering the religious history.
People don’t realize that Orthodox Jews literally spit at Christian worshipers in Israel.
We have to admit what is going on here. The IDF built multiple AI killing machines with US and Western money (Christian money) and then named them intentionally offensively and with direct hostility to Christianity. There is absolutely no possibility that the people who selected the name “The Gospel” and “Lavender” were not doing so in a religious context.
From a religious standpoint Islam and Christianity are incredibly close. Orthodox Jews only view Christians as useful idiots in their agenda not as religious allies, quite the opposite.
Regarding Lavender - copilot with references below. However I think you are likely correct that the accuracy of the connection is potentially flawed, however it’s the beliefs that matter, and a large number of Christians believe there is a direct connection.
Lavender has *profound connections* to divine symbolism within *Christianity*. Here are some references for you to review:
1. *Biblical Meaning of Lavender*: - Lavender's spiritual essence is depicted in various contexts within biblical scripture. - It is considered a powerful tool for *spiritual purification* in Christianity. - The scent of lavender uplifts the spirit, fosters inner peace, and aids in establishing a connection with the Divine¹.
2. *Folklore and Symbolism*: - When a woman washed Jesus' feet, the lotion she applied contained lavender. - Mary, Jesus' mother, hung his swaddling clothes on a lavender bush, transferring his scent to the plant. - As a result, lavender came to represent *cleanliness* and *purity* in Christian symbolism³.
3. *Spiritual Benefits*: - Lavender is associated with calmness, purification, and tranquility. - It is closely linked with the *crown chakra*, which connects to spiritual realms. - Smelling lavender during meditation and yoga can purify and cleanse the air, aiding in spiritual practices⁵.
Feel free to explore these references further to deepen your understanding of the connection between lavender and Christianity!
Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/5/2024 (1) Biblical Meaning of Lavender - Divine Symbolism. https://biblewithus.com/biblical-meaning-of-lavender/. (2) Lavender Folklore: The Tales Behind This Calming Purple Plant. https://www.icysedgwick.com/lavender-folklore/. (3) The Spiritual Benefits and Meaning of Lavender - Original Botanica. https://originalbotanica.com/blog/spiritual-benefits-lavende.... (4) The Spiritual Meaning of Lavender - TheReadingTub. https://thereadingtub.com/lavender-meaning-spiritual/. (5) History’s Love of Lavender: From Mummies to Bathhouses and Beyond!. https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/l....
Christianity: • Jesus ascended into Heaven • Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, & the final prophet • Jesus’ soul & body are in heaven • Jesus will return to destroy Satan and establish peace on earth • Jesus came from a virgin birth • Jesus performed miracles
Islam: • Jesus ascended into Heaven • Jesus is the word of God, and his messenger and a deliverer of the scripture • Jesus’ soul & body are in heaven • Jesus will return with Imam Mahdi to destroy a False Messiah and establish peace on earth • Jesus came from a virgin birth • Jesus performed miracles
Judaism: • Jesus did not ascend • Jesus was the most damaging false Messiah • Jesus is in boiling excrement in Hell. • Jesus will not return • Jesus had a normal birth • His miracles were of the devil
I would kindly suggest that if you want to understand the meaning of Christian symbolism you should rely on the New Testament and possibly the Old Testament also. You don't need internet searches and chatbots for that.
Or, of course, you could chat with a Christian.
Specifically for this:
>> However I think you are likely correct that the accuracy of the connection is potentially flawed, however it’s the beliefs that matter, and a large number of Christians believe there is a direct connection.
That is what needs a source and I can't find one in what you have provided. Who says that "a large number of Christians believe..." etc? In my experience, nobody I know who is Christian believes that.
I’m in the US and every Catholic I’ve asked associates Lavender with faith. Several of the references I gave are directly Christian themed sources.
We know Christianity is very diverse and has numerous interpretations. I think it’s possible in more Orthodox leaning cultures that Lavender is substituted.
Regarding Old and New Testament, I certainly agree those are the primary and authoritative sources and as I referenced earlier the translations are in dispute and likely source of this confusion. Different traditions appear to have differing translations of the underlying plants being mentioned.
Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that these situations are exactly why the Geneva Conventions[0] require combatants to have (a) uniforms, and (b) a command structure:
(a) prevents someone low from disingenuously stopping the buck by claiming "tweren't no orders; I'm acting on my own"
(b) prevents someone high from arguing as Uber does: "you see, we're not a traditional army that gives orders to our fighters — we just provide a service that matches attackers and targets online, and really, anything bad that allegedly happened was only between those two parties"[1]
[0] if we're not doing these anymore, just go ahead and tell me "the future is now, old man", and I'll take my mutterings to the pétanque piste.
[1] > "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun —TAL
They even made a cruel joke by naming the automated killing system "Lavender". Lavender flowers were used in clothes washing since ancient times. The name of the flower cames from the Latin word for washing. Portuguese inherited it, for example, with the word for lavender, "lavanda", sounding similar to the verb to wash, "lavar".
They’ll keep saying this forever, and there’s a shroud of plausible deniability to it! Not to mention it can soothe the conscience of the operatives who have to live with their decisions - they don’t even have to look through the family photos - the AI has already filtered out the suspicious parts. In reality, it’s a good ole recommendation engine, just like Netflix or TikTok. And when you’re tired, have too much work stacked up, you’ll be more likely to let autoplay take over – or approve the strike of someone’s home.
To those that think this is harsh: please read the article. It’s that bad.
In other words, operators are threatened with punishment if they take the time to inspect the results more closely before following orders. It's not even an option!
> In order to speed up target elimination, *soldiers have been ordered to treat Lavender-generated targets as an order, rather than something to be independently checked*, the investigation found. Soldiers in charge of manually checking targets spent only seconds on each person, sources said, merely to make sure the target was a man. Children are also considered legitimate targets by Lavender.
In either case, the role of the recommendation engine is immensely impactful, as we already know from consumer products. But here the software engineers are directly involved in life-and-death decisions at scale. I really hope they know that.
The notable element of this news is not that the decision-making was automated. It's that they set the civilian collateral death ratio to ~100 (and other details such as considering children to be valid combatant targets), regardless of whether the process that arrives at that was automated or not.
The only apparent operator act that seems to be something they are involved in is turning the dial up or down to get more or less "hits". Depressingly this appears to be related to superiors shouting at them as they don't have enough targets.
It's absolutely sickening.
This was the earliest official report sourced by the UN, pegging Turkey: https://www.fox5ny.com/news/fully-autonomous-drone-was-used-...
The article makes it quite clear this is not what’s happening and not why the systems are in use. They’re being used to generate a target list faster than could be done by traditional methods, and are being used despite agreeing with traditional methods only 90% of the time. They’re being used to accelerate the war, not make it more accurate.
Which one exactly? The guardian article quotes literally hundreds of sources - which ones are you bothered by?
>>the use of technology and AI to minimize civilian casualties in guerrilla warfare.
It achieves literally no such thing, it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
>>How much civilians did US kill during Vietnam war?
Peak whataboutism. As if everyone on the internet is American or believes that we should be comparing everyone else to America.
In the year 2022 Russia invaded ukraine, flattened two (?) cities, showed no concern for civilian life, committed war crimes.
And yet Israel has killed more children in 6 months than Russia did in 3 years.
Russia killed 4 western aid workers in 2022, Israel already more than that in 1 week, we are suppose to believe these are accidents?
Look at the battles of Grozny for a more apt comparison of Russian urban warfare.
In what universe is that a less biased title? It is just biased in a different direction.
Absolute statements are hard. I mean, I agree with the sentiment, but I can't get behind such a strong statement.
If you have a 10 person group deciding who to kill, and reduce their workload with AI so that the 10 person group can take more time double checking-- that's "using AI to decide who to kill" but probably improves outcomes.
The problem is, in practice, we know that people are just going to punt responsibility to the machine and shrug.
Everything else flows from that.
At a high-level, that decision compression will be an arms race between competitors for military advantage, where the argument to relax human-scale decisions will be "If we don't do it, we'll lose to someone who will."
You saw the same thing in the nuclear arms race, as launch-to-impact time compression (as technology advanced) eroded available human decision time.
But popping off half-cocked often results in bad outcomes, so there's a tradeoff between decision quality and decision time.
In theory, having AI in the loop could improve both. In practice, I suspect you're right.
And maybe always has been, internationally-speaking?
It would be nice to reform UN and supra-national rules of warfare in light of modern developments.
Even a "this is an acceptable ratio of civilian collateral deaths, above which constitutes a war crime" would be helpful for curtailing nation's baser urges.
If I had to guess, it was even less. Now at least there can be media backlash.
> Even a "this is an acceptable ratio of civilian collateral deaths, above which constitutes a war crime" would be helpful for curtailing nation's baser urges.
Having some kind of metric would be nice. However, there are problems with it being too simple (your enemy has a say in how exposed their civilians are; and we'd hate to leave countries with less precision in their militaries without the ability to defend themselves).
If killing the right person is too much work then you shouldn’t be killing
Some historians say US Secretary for War Henry Stimson had a personal reason for sparing Kyoto. (edit : wrong Henry)
As gross and unfortunate as it is, this is a selling feature to some governments.
You only need a Nuremberg Defense if you lose, and your country is taken over.
If you are an American soldier, only the US will be able to hold you accountable.
Israel has nukes and the backing of America. I think it is unlikely that they would ever lose so badly as their soldiers face a Nuremberg like trial.
How much technology is it ethical to use in the decision-making loop for kinetic decisions? I don't think there's an easy answer here that actually engages meaningfully with the question.
It most certainly does not. And comments and thinking like this enable that. There is a human who is responsible for deciding to use the AI, that human is responsible. If they can't handle the responsibility, then don't use AI.
No it doesn't. That was always a possibility. Atrocity with no accountability long predates AI, and the ethics of "using them to decide who to kill" are isomorphic with the ethics of using a dice roll to decide who to kill.
In this case, the people you could choose to hold accountable is everybody who planned, built, or activated the machine made of a Wacky Waving Inflatable Tube Man mounting a chaingun, designed to spray bullets indiscriminately in all directions. The fact that no human trigger finger is actually on the trigger does not AT ALL defuse ethical considerations, does not exculpate anybody. We kill with machines in every military, but it's human decisions all the way down no matter how long ago a human last physically touched the munition.
The lack of accountability starts to occur when a journalist embraces headlines like "AI Made Decisions About Who To Target", rather than using scarequotes and agency - "IDF-run AI system 'Made Decisions' about who to target". The IDF are the actors in this construction, the AI system is just a tool. The lack of accountability continues in the political sphere where no war crime investigation takes place, no red line is instituted, no Geopolitical Consequences arise. It finalizes in the polity when no liberal / humanist vigilante takes revenge into their own hands, no 4chah/kiwifarms investigation doxes their family, no airline pilot diverts to the Hague, we just sort of embrace treating atrocity-committers humanely because we're lazy cowards.
Well, it isn't. This is a strategic choice, and one pretty much every military took
No it doesn't. If you use any tool to kill people (ie a gun, bomb, computer) the person (or people) who used the tool are accountable.
Cynically, it’s not who is actually responsible and by how much, it’s who is forced to take the blame.
Arguably the German nation/culture has done this. At least in large part. Not sure any cultural repentance would ever be enough though.
I also feel like there is in Canada at least a growing understanding of the horrors of colonization and attempted genocide and assimilation against First Nations here. Whether that ultimately leads to reconciliation and a better path forward is hard to say.
There's matters of degrees. And this is just one or two steps away from full autonomous murder.
Reminds me of this section Frank Herbert's God Emperor of Dune:
... She would carry with her forever afterward the clear sights and sounds and smells. The seeking machines would be there, the smell of blood and entrails, the cowering humans in their burrows, aware only that they could not escape . . . while all the time the mechanical movement approached, nearer and nearer and nearer ...louder...louder!
...like the terrible machines of that apocalyptic vision, the predator could follow any creature who left tracks.*Your adversary only needs to get lucky once.
Imagine if the superweapon US developed during WWII was AI. They'd use it to deliver devastating destruction to military factories in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, saving 100k+ civilian lives.
We have precedent from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, that the US would occupy the area and spend vast amounts of resources trying and failing to do precision strikes to take out the leadership, and then eventually give up and go back home.
If you've seen any of the images coming out of Gaza, you'd know that there isn't that much of a distinction between Israel using this AI and just bombing the shit out of everyone, which is why it's being suspected of being morality washing. They can just continue to bomb the shit out of everyone and claim to have blindly listened to the computer when questioned.
It had to be.. week 1? that they bombed a children’s hospital. They even shot a few of their own who were escaping captivity.
I honestly can't tell if you're being ironic or not.
Do you believe these were the first aid workers who were killed?
Yes, I'm sure Israel shooting all of those kids in Gaza is just self defense - after all, they can't grow up to become terrorists if they are dead already.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/23/israel...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestini...
Like, I know this is an extreme example, but this isn't anywhere near as black and white as you present. Israel has done a lot of shit to Gaza over many many many decades, and while it doesn't justify terrorist acts towards Israel, many people could argue that Palestinians are also defending themselves in many ways.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestini...
I'll replace the tehran times link now.
Your comment is basically unrelated to the parent comment. Parent said nothing about any specific country, just that it is unethical to use AI to decide who to kill.
USA bad. Yes, yes.
That could be an interesting discussion!
However, your argument actually appears to be "USA did shitty things". And you are presenting it in a way that looks almost designed to incite a flame-war, between this comment and your other one.
But you consider this good, so it makes me wonder how people like you sleep at night after supporting the death and starvation of an entire population.
Is it any more horrifying or unethical to decide without AI?
> It creates the possibility of atrocity with no accountability.
Who was held accountable for hiroshima? Or do you know how much atrocities were committed to create israel? You act like we had accountability before AI. We've never had accountability for atrocities. Just victor's 'justice'.
AI can be better than humans when it comes to atrocities. It can be as bad as humans, But it can never be worse. Humans set the standard.
It is harder to get 1000 people to participate in an unethical military campaign than it is to get 10 people. So if you can make those 10 people 100x as efficient...
No. It's easier to get 1000000 to participate than 1000. But that's not the point. We are talking about accountability. I'd say it's easier to hold 10 people accountable than a 1000.
Also. No matter how bullish you are on the potential of AI, it's horrifying and categorically unethical to use them to decide who to kill. It creates the possibility of atrocity with no accountability.
Although the fact that this guy was anonymous to start with definitely indicates that accountability isn't the goal here.