174
US military pulls the trigger, uses AI to target air strikes
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
174 points (97.3% liked)
News
22855 readers
5658 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The more selective we convince ourselves our weapons are, the more willing we are to use them in conflicts where civilians are put at risk—our use of weapons is constrained by the level of collateral damage we’re willing to take responsibility for, and by distancing ourselves from that responsibility, AI allows us to escalate conflicts until civilians are at even greater risk. It’s the Jevons paradox, with human life instead of gasoline.
It depends on how well trained your FM is, really. AI/ML is already better than humans at things like cancer diagnoses and such, so there's really no reason to think that using it in this instance would create more of a risk to civilians than a human operator.
Most people's experience with AI is ChatGPT or similar, but ChatGPT really isn't a very good LLM. Plus, an LLM is only as good as your prompt engineering.
All that being said, there should always be a human double checking the targets in order to catch hallucinations.
The issue behind the Jevons effect isn’t that the technology in question doesn’t work as advertised—it’s that, by reducing the negative consequences associated with a decision, people become increasingly willing to make that decision until the aggregate negative consequences more than cancel out the effect of the “improvement”.
There's really no reason to think this technology will be victim to the Jevons paradox. These strikes are already happening remotely, and if AI/ML can better discern targets vs civilians there's absolutely no reason to think civilian casualties will increase because of it.
That's like saying using AI/ML to screen for cancer will result in more people dying from cancer.
You're trying to apply an economical theory about the consumption of finite resources to a completely unrelated field/sector.