Would you prefer that militaries have less-capable software to make targeting decisions?

Perhaps it would be preferable at least to not mix civilian health data or regular business data, with mass surveillance data, and with military industrial complex and kill chain data. It would make sense to have an interest in keeping different kinds of personal data in separate places and not have it thrown around companies with quite different interests or collected together within some company that's involved in quite different industries. So why does it not make sense to apologists of this company?

▲

8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

berkanunal 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How capable it is do you think at this moment. I guess we need 30 more years for software to get better, so less than 20 thousand children dies in the Gaza genocide.

▲

hackable_sand 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would prefer that militaries do not deliberately genocide civilians and antagonize non-combatants.

▲

XorNot 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a "motherhood statement"[1] - you haven't answered the question.

Militaries make targeting decisions with data. That's entirely separate to whether they have been ordered by civilian government to target something, and Palantir do not control that part of decision making (you as a voter do! You did vote right?)

1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/motherhood_statement

▲

dwb 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No it’s not. It’s totally conceivable that the (perceived) quality of targeting data would contribute to the decision of whether to run a mission at all, and if so how extensively.

▲

whimsicalism an hour ago | parent | next [-]

isn’t that essentially true of any technology that reduces the civilian casualties of a conflict?

▲

dwb 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

The companies involved definitely want you to think that part of their noble goal is reducing civilian casualties. As far as I can see, though, that is pure propaganda.

	▲	whimsicalism 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		i am not saying that is the case here, all i am saying is that your argument would apply to any technology that lets you better differentiate/target enemies vs. civilians, which suggests to me it is overbroad.
	▲	rkomorn 13 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You can reduce civilian casualties by reducing the number of people considered civilians.

▲

mexicocitinluez an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Absolutely.

And that the people who stand to benefit the most from another war might want to filter/target that data in a way to make that more probable?

I mean, I know it's a stretch. Especially with how benevolent our current class of billionaires are. But just imagine a guy who thinks money is more important than anything else. I know... another stretch. lol.

▲

mexicocitinluez an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> > Palantir do not control that part of decision making (you as a voter do! You did vote right?)

You're not actually suggesting that the company providing the data isn't at all part of that process, are you?

Can you, for a second, imagine a company collecting/forwarding only data that's beneficial to it's core objective? Especially one whose led by a guy who has quite literally benefits off of a war????

▲

hackable_sand 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh sorry I mean

Yes, citizen-friend! I have upheld the Prime Directive and participated in our routine civic sports. Next month I will initiate the annual tributary credit transfer so that the oracle may see more clearly.