| ▲ | colingauvin 4 hours ago |
| While I think that it's important to do root cause analysis, we need to be very careful not to absolve blame from the people that decided to shift a significant weight of decision-making authority to an AI. An AI can't be tried in a court. There has to be a responsible human for everyone one of its actions, especially when it's killing (-people-) children. I cannot believe this has come to pass. |
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/10/pentagon-iran-schoo... > The Pentagon chief last year slashed offices that didn’t contribute to his goal of “lethality,” including the group that assists in limiting risk to civilians, known as the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. Around 200 employees who worked on the issue, including at that office, have been reduced by about 90 percent, according to two current and former officials and a person familiar with the effort. The team that handles civilian casualties at Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, has dropped from 10 to one. Negligent homicide in pursuit of their DEI goals, basically. |
| |
| ▲ | stuaxo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you just chuck that on the end of any sentence, because this makes less sense than an LLM. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | shepherdjerred an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Taking AI out of the equation, surely these same kinds of mistakes have been made in the recent past. As in, not doing due diligence and mistakenly killing civilians (setting aside when civilians are purposefully harmed which is a conversation about morals rather than the capability to make correct decisions) What I am getting at is, has AI really made the problem worse or has the mechanism just changed? |
| |
| ▲ | aDyslecticCrow an hour ago | parent [-] | | We are increasingly seeing "Sorry out <Black box> made a mistake, the developers are fixing it" rather than any one person taking responsibility for the decision. This is a growing problem that is made worse by AI. Over-inflated trust in AI output is also documented issue; "The perfect billion dollar targeting system with a 99.9% success-rate (on its verification dataset)" just made a "fluke"; "Nothing could have stopped this tragedy" When it was just called a "database query" or "algorithmic estimation", it was more implied that the actual decision is left to be made and that no analysis had actually been done yet. But when AI preemptively says "I've analyzed every source of data and come to the conclusion that this ship is carrying nuclear bomb material"; it really sounds urgent doesn't it? It probably doubled down when asked about it. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-f... |
|
|
| ▲ | dmix 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The headline says "contributed to missile strike", not caused it. |
| |
| ▲ | colingauvin an hour ago | parent [-] | | >people that decided to shift a significant weight of decision-making authority to an AI And I hedged that. Anything short of 100% responsibility with humans is a failure. I get investigating how it occurred, but that needs be very careful to separate ought from is. | | |
| ▲ | dmix 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's fair The obvious questions is when the intelligence needed to be updated (ie, when Iran decided to put a girls school on a military base) and when Iran made that fact public, or at least when the US intel should have figured it out with satellites and other sources. If it's years old then definitely on human. Intelligence will always be flaky in these hostile countries. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jacquesm 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| can -> can't |
| |
