I mean, the problem is whoever follow the suggestion without double checking

The IDF are notorious for using ROE as a cover story rather than rules. The only ROE they follow with any consistency is "Don't shoot Jews".

Given the IDF bias towards killing unarmed Palestinians, selling them any autonomous targetting capability under the assumption of an ROE is grossly culpable.

> The only ROE they follow with any consistency is "Don't shoot Jews".

Except Arabic or Ethiopian Jews. They have a bit of leeway that way.

And hostages coming towards you with their hands up speaking Hebrew.

I bet there is some moronic explanation. I have no doubt at this point and how things are going.

Well at least you know who to fire

I mean, they've made the argument that their computer learns like a human, so should be able to get away with ingesting all the data it sees, the same way a human does.

Why shouldn't it also go to jail, the same way a human does?

What? How? By putting the computer or robot that made mistake in a prison cell?

Yes. Claude exists on physical media somewhere. Put that media in a cell with no access to the internet. No one must access Claude outside of visitation hours.

Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it can't be done. If you're claiming your machine should be treated like a human, then let's treat it like a human.

I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not…

It's a funny way of imposing a very large fine. Make the service only available during predefined "visitation hours", prevent updated learning except from resources available in the prison, restrict speech and actions according to prison rules etc.

I remember this but I can't remember where it's from? IBM?

Yes: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Feb/3/a-computer-can-never-be...