[alephknoll]

> No matter how bullish you are on the potential of AI, it's horrifying and categorically unethical to use them to decide who to kill.

Is it any more horrifying or unethical to decide without AI?

> It creates the possibility of atrocity with no accountability.

Who was held accountable for hiroshima? Or do you know how much atrocities were committed to create israel? You act like we had accountability before AI. We've never had accountability for atrocities. Just victor's 'justice'.

AI can be better than humans when it comes to atrocities. It can be as bad as humans, But it can never be worse. Humans set the standard.

[uluyol]

> Is it any more horrifying or unethical to decide without AI?

It is harder to get 1000 people to participate in an unethical military campaign than it is to get 10 people. So if you can make those 10 people 100x as efficient...

[alephknoll]

> It is harder to get 1000 people to participate in an unethical military campaign than it is to get 10 people.

No. It's easier to get 1000000 to participate than 1000. But that's not the point. We are talking about accountability. I'd say it's easier to hold 10 people accountable than a 1000.