Google’s AI is being used by US military drone program for data analyzing - Polidicks

[quote]Google’s artificial intelligence technologies are being used by the US military for one of its drone projects, causing controversy both inside and outside the company. Google’s TensorFlow AI systems are being used by the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) Project Maven, which was established in July last year to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to analyse the vast amount of footage shot by US drones. The initial intention is to have AI analyse the video, detect objects of interest and flag them for a human analyst to review. Drew Cukor, chief of the DoD’s Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Function Team, said in July: “People and computers will work symbiotically to increase the ability of weapon systems to detect objects. Eventually we hope that one analyst will be able to do twice as much work, potentially three times as much, as they’re doing now. That’s our goal.” Project Maven forms part of the $7.4bn spent on AI and data processing by the DoD, and has seen the Pentagon partner with various academics and experts in the field of AI and data processing. It has reportedly already been put into use against Islamic State.[/quote] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/07/google-ai-us-department-of-defense-military-drone-project-maven-tensorflow[/url]

Google, who needs ethics when you can use ML to help the DoD blow up more civilians?

Fuck no we don’t need more weapon systems controlled by machines getting false positives and killing people. The NSA already had a machine controlled hit list in the Middle East marking people for death via missile named after fucking Skynet.

May I just remind you all of google's old slogan: 'Don't be Evil'

if you actually read the article it's about google's image detection shit replacing human operators who currently mark vehicles and stuff not autodetecting and blowing taliban to bits christ, calm down

-snip- repeating above poster's point

Well, open source is open source. If this is causing inter-company strifr then they should have probably released it with a different license.

[QUOTE=Perl;53184428]if you actually read the article it's about google's image detection shit replacing human operators who currently mark vehicles and stuff not autodetecting and blowing taliban to bits christ, calm down[/QUOTE] You know, I actually added the words "for data analyzing" to the title [I]JUST SO[/I] people would not think of it that way and post without reading the article :speechless:

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53184369]Fuck no we don’t need more weapon systems controlled by machines getting false positives and killing people. The NSA already had a machine controlled hit list in the Middle East marking people for death via missile named after fucking Skynet.[/QUOTE] Yeah no.

Drones are an abhorrent piece of technology regardless if a person or AI is driving it. The current state might be marking vehicles but we shouldn't be putting these kinds of systems near weapon platforms. There's already too many civilian casualties regardless.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;53184914]Drones are an abhorrent piece of technology regardless if a person or AI is driving it. The current state might be marking vehicles but we shouldn't be putting these kinds of systems near weapon platforms. There's already too many civilian casualties regardless.[/QUOTE] So instead we should use Apaches to do exactly the same thing. Or we could just declare open war and start with carpet bombing and napalm.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53184925]So instead we should use Apaches to do exactly the same thing. Or we could just declare open war and start with carpet bombing and napalm.[/QUOTE] what if what if we didn't kill people?

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;53184937]what if what if we didn't kill people?[/QUOTE] Depending on the people, we would save a boatload of money and probably suffer limited negative consequences. Depending on the people. I was responding to your blanket hatred of drones. Unless of course you think we should never use aircraft to kill anyone ever.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53184925]So instead we should use Apaches to do exactly the same thing. Or we could just declare open war and start with carpet bombing and napalm.[/QUOTE] But then we would have to be accountable of our actions. Can't have that!

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;53184914]Drones are an abhorrent piece of technology regardless if a person or AI is driving it. The current state might be marking vehicles but we shouldn't be putting these kinds of systems near weapon platforms. There's already too many civilian casualties regardless.[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;53184977]drones are unaccountable?[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/world/middleeast/drone-strike-statistics-answer-few-questions-and-raise-many.html]lol they aren't[/url]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53184974]But then we would have to be accountable of our actions. Can't have that![/QUOTE] How do drones reduce accountability? An apache hellfire strike is decided basically by the pilot and the Gunner. They communicate audio back to base, but the strike is almost entirely on them. Drone strikes are decided by entire rooms of people who are all looking at the same data, including command staff. No friendly lives are in immediate danger most of the time, and loiter times are much longer on fixed wing aircraft, so less pressure is present for an immediate strike.

[QUOTE=phygon;53184980]Why?[/QUOTE] My statement was less directed at drones themselves and more their application. "Acceptable civilian causalities" is a phrase thrown around alongside these discussions and then we turn around and go "gee why are people bombing our capitols?"

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;53184989]My statement was less directed at drones themselves and more their application. "Acceptable civilian causalities" is a phrase thrown around alongside these discussions and then we turn around and go "gee why are people bombing our capitols?"[/QUOTE] "Acceptable civilian casualties" have happened in every single war where civilian casualties were a thing that was considered to be bad. However, I agree. I just also don't see a better way to remove an entrenched building from the desert that is quite literally swarming with armed militia members.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53184985]How do drones reduce accountability? An apache hellfire strike is decided basically by the pilot and the Gunner. They communicate audio back to base, but the strike is almost entirely on them. Drone strikes are decided by entire rooms of people who are all looking at the same data, including command staff. No friendly lives are in immediate danger most of the time, and loiter times are much longer on fixed wing aircraft, so less pressure is present for an immediate strike.[/QUOTE] Because having servicemen enter a country to take out a target without that country's permission could be considered an act of war, where as somehow it's okay if it's an unmanned drone because no American ever entered foreign airspace.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53185159]Because having servicemen enter a country to take out a target without that country's permission could be considered an act of war, where as somehow it's okay if it's an unmanned drone because no American ever entered foreign airspace.[/QUOTE] I don't think that is how they look at it.

Seems ok to me. Better intelligence products produce less collateral damage and misidentification.

What the fuck is this dumb shit article. They can't be referring to this open source ml framework can they ? [url]https://www.tensorflow.org[/url] [editline]8th March 2018[/editline] it's one of the most popular go-to tools for ml

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53185159]Because having servicemen enter a country to take out a target without that country's permission could be considered an act of war, where as somehow it's okay if it's an unmanned drone because no American ever entered foreign airspace.[/QUOTE] Wait a second, if 1 nation fires a missle into another country, they can't be held responsable becuse no man entered the country? Oo

It's not that drone warfare is somehow wildly different or more destructive or less accountable than other forms of air war. What they are is easier and cheaper. It's easier to couch it in terms that make it into a 'not-war', one where you don't need an official declaration of hostilities and get the minimum of civilian oversight, when there's no pilots to worry about being shot down, no ludicrously expensive cruise missiles to replace, and no burden on the public to provide bodies. The less risk it takes to bomb, the more you're going to do it.