Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I kind of believe them because it seems quite reasonable that the AI or whatever draws a slighty wrong border around a military complex, or an AI that was trained to distinguish different military targets was not trained very well on schools.
At least they are investigating. I assume that while the military naturally accepts that some civilian deaths cannot be prevented, they still try to minimise those when possible.
Since people all over the world are prone to simply trusting AI, it is important that a military creates procedures and educated their responsible personnel in order to mitigate the risks of AI use.
frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
You are far too credulous. First strikes are some of the most deeply and throughly planned operations in a campaign. They knew exactly which apartments to go after, but we think they used a.i.?
Also, bombing schools is something the US has down in nearly every single campaign in the last 20 years and those were planned without a.i. So now we’re supposed to believe they used a totally different planning technique and got the exact same result? And then double tapped it?
Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I think you may have too high expectations about the motivation and work ethics of the average office worker. Just because they’re job is too decide who to kill does not mean they are extra careful about that. Killing is part of the job after all.
frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Average office workers aren’t involved in planning military first strikes in some of the most consequential campaigns in history. You’re stretching incredibly to try to paint the easily recognizable pattern of deliberate US war crimes as unwitting incompetence and it’s pretty gross