Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
These aren't AI firms, they're defense contractors. We can't let them hide behind their models (The Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/mar/15/ai-defense-warfare-companies-snip-
Many of these AI systems inherently defy international humanitarian law, which does not merely demand correct outcomes from military operations; it requires a careful process before they’re carried out. A commander must make every reasonable effort to verify that a target is a legitimate military objective. The law also requires that everything feasible be done to protect civilians from the effects of attack, not as an afterthought, but as a parallel and equal obligation.
-snip-
When reported verification times for AI-assisted targets are measured in seconds, we are no longer talking about human judgment with algorithmic assistance. We are talking about rubber-stamping a machine’s output. And when that machine’s data is a decade out of date, the consequences are written in rows of small coffins.
-snip-
Of course private companies have supplied militaries for centuries – with radios, trucks, satellite navigation, microwave technology and, of course, complex weapons systems. This is not new or inherently corrupt. The “dual-use” problem is as old as industrialization: almost any powerful technology can be used for military ends.
But AI targeting is not simply a component that militaries incorporate into their operations. It is the decision architecture itself – the thing that determines who gets killed and why. When a single system can generate tens of thousands of targets in the time it would have taken a human intelligence team to verify 10, the question is not whether private companies should supply militaries. It is whether any legal framework can survive contact with it.
-snip-
Many of these AI systems inherently defy international humanitarian law, which does not merely demand correct outcomes from military operations; it requires a careful process before they’re carried out. A commander must make every reasonable effort to verify that a target is a legitimate military objective. The law also requires that everything feasible be done to protect civilians from the effects of attack, not as an afterthought, but as a parallel and equal obligation.
-snip-
When reported verification times for AI-assisted targets are measured in seconds, we are no longer talking about human judgment with algorithmic assistance. We are talking about rubber-stamping a machine’s output. And when that machine’s data is a decade out of date, the consequences are written in rows of small coffins.
-snip-
Of course private companies have supplied militaries for centuries – with radios, trucks, satellite navigation, microwave technology and, of course, complex weapons systems. This is not new or inherently corrupt. The “dual-use” problem is as old as industrialization: almost any powerful technology can be used for military ends.
But AI targeting is not simply a component that militaries incorporate into their operations. It is the decision architecture itself – the thing that determines who gets killed and why. When a single system can generate tens of thousands of targets in the time it would have taken a human intelligence team to verify 10, the question is not whether private companies should supply militaries. It is whether any legal framework can survive contact with it.
-snip-
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
