https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/hamas-israel-war-24/all-art...
Probably this is due to confusion over what the term "AI" means. If you do some queries on a database, and call yourself a "data scientist", and other people who call themselves data scientists do some AI, does that mean you're doing AI? For left wing journalists who want to undermine the Israelis (the story originally appeared in the Guardian) it'd be easy to hear what you want to hear from your sources and conflate using data with using AI. This is the kind of blurring that happens all the time with apparently technical terms once they leave the tech world and especially once they enter journalism.
At most charitable, that means a person is reviewing all data points before approval.
At least charitable, that means a person is clicking approved after glancing at the values generated by the system.
The press release doesn't help clarify that one way or the other.
If you want to read thoughts by the guy who was in charge of building and operating the automated intelligence system, he wrote a book: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Machine-Team-Artificial-Intelli...
Given that the underlying premise of the story is bizarre (is the IDF really so short of manpower that they can't select their own targets), and given that the sort of people who work at the Guardian openly loathe Israel, it makes more sense that the story is being misreported.
The premise that the IDF would use some form of automated information processing to help select potential targets, in the year 2023?
There's nothing at all unrealistic about this premise, of course. If anything it's rather bizarre to suggest that it might be.
The sort of people who work at the Guardian openly loathe Israel
This sounds you just don't have much to say about the substantive claims of these reports (which began with research by two Israeli publications, +972 and the Local Call -- and then taken further by The Guardian). Or would you say that former two "openly loathe Israel" also? Along with the Israeli sources that they're quoting?
AI is how it is marketed to the buyers. Either way, the system isn't a database or simple statistics. https://www.accessnow.org/publication/artificial-genocidal-i...
Ex, autonomous weapons like "smart shooter" employed in Hebron and Bethlehem: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/06/palestinian-forum-highli...
These sources are rife with bias. The first article literally says 'artificial genocidal intelligence'. The second emmediatly references the international crime of apartheid.
Genocide was the Arab world's openly stated objective for the Jews in 1948.
The international crime of apartheid was created by the United Nations. To those who understand the middle east, this statement is as equal an endictment of credibility as the former regarding genocide.
The nuance matters. The history matters. I'd recommend watching PBS's lengthy series 'Israel and the Arabs.' it's entertaining and enlightening. Then spend another few hours on the topic and travel to the middle east to see it yourself. After that, articles such as the ones you posted really read quite differently than most might expect.
A euphemism for apartheid and oppression?
> sources are rife with bias
What's biased about terming autonomous weapons as "AI"? Or, sounding alarm over dystopian surveillance enabled by AI?
> The nuance matters.
Like Ben Gurion terming Lehi "freedom fighters" as terrorists? And American Jewish intellectuals back then calling them fascists?
> The history matters... After that, articles such as the ones you posted really read quite differently than most might expect.
https://www.wetheblacksheep.com/p/i-changed-my-mind-on-zioni...
Most people have already made up their minds. There is little I can do about that, but perhaps someone else might see this and think twice.
Personally, I have spent many thousands of hours on this topic. I have Palestinian relatives and have visited the Middle East. I have Arab friends there, both Christian and Muslim, whom I would gladly protect with my life. I am neither Jewish nor Israeli.
There are countless reasons for me to support your side of this issue. However, I have not done so for a simple reason: I strive to remain fiercely objective.
As a final note, in my youth, I held views similar to the ones you propagate. This was for a simple reason—I had not taken the time to understand the complexities of the Middle East. Even now, I cannot claim to fully comprehend them. However, over time, one realizes that while every story has two sides, the context is crucial. The contextual depth required to grasp the regrettable necessity of Israeli actions in their neighborhood can take years or even decades of study to reconcile. I expect to change few minds on this topic. Ultimately, it is up to the voters to decide. There is overwhelming bipartisan support for Israel in one of the world's most divided congresses, and this support stems more from shared values than from arms sales.
I stand by my original comment. As I said, this will be my last on this topic. I hope this exchange proves useful to some.
Commendable. You'll appreciate this Israeli historian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj_HKw-UlUk (summary: https://archive.is/dOP7g). And this Israeli Prof, also an expert on Holocaust studies, being fiercely objective: https://www.mekomit.co.il/ps/134005/ (en: https://archive.is/Fjj6f)
> I had not taken the time to understand the complexities of the Middle East. Even now, I cannot claim to fully comprehend them.
Why even spend 2 comments?
> The contextual depth required to grasp the regrettable necessity of Israeli actions...
The same level of depth as Supremacists who regrettably exterminated non-Aryans?
> There is overwhelming bipartisan support for Israel in one of the world's most divided congresses, and this support stems more from shared values.
This is undeniable, but the underlying "shared values" here are not the ones you'd like us to think: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehuman...
> I stand by my original comment.
Like you say, there's the entire might of the US political and elite class behind you; it isn't some act of courage or rebellion, fwiw.
> As a final note, in my youth, I held views similar to the ones you propagate.
Propagate? Your final note sounds like a threat.
I got to say this is a pretty masterful deceit.
How would you substantiate this claim?
Call these LLMs stupid all you want but on focused tasks they can reason decently enough. And better than any past tech.
Make defensive comments in response to LLM skepticism all you want— there are still precisely zero (0) reasons to believe they’ll make a quantum leap towards human-level reasoning any time soon.
The fact that they’re much better than any previous tech is irrelevant when they’re still so obviously far from competent in so many important ways.
To allow your technological optimism to convince you to that this very simple and very big challenge is somehow trivial and that progress will inevitably continue apace is to engage in the very drollest form of kidding yoursef.
Pre-space travel, you could’ve climbed the tallest mountain on earth and have truthfully claimed that you were closer to the moon than any previous human, but that doesn’t change the fact that the best way to actually get to the moon is to climb down from the mountain and start building a rocket.
why are you... kinda going off like this?
On top of that, why do you follow me around over the course of ... months making these comments. Its really extreme.
LLM's will of course also be used, due to their convenience and superficial 'intelligence', and because of the layer of deniability creating a technical substrate between soldier and civilian victim provides - as has happened for two decades with drones.