any president can

oh nooo a warning whatever will they do

you can pack the court at anytime Joe, how about now

Locking comments, this has gone off the rails and devolved into hurling insults

There is no need to be tolerant towards the intolerant. If someone says they want to do some ethnic cleansing, that’s not exactly a nice gesture and pushing back against that message is both cool and good.

just popping in because this was reported - I would suggest being supportive of others who are trying to accomplish the same kind of things you are rather than calling them “utterly delusional”

it’s not nice to cast ‘brain conditions’ in a negative light nor to accuse people who are acting in self interest of having any conditions other than not caring about their fellow human!

When you abstract out pieces of the puzzle, it’s easier to ignore whether all parts of the puzzle are working because you’ve eliminated the necessary interchange of information between parties involved in the process. This is a problem that we frequently run into in the medical field and even in a highly collaborative field like medicine we still screw it up all the time.

In the previous process, intelligence officers were involved in multiple steps here to validate whether someone was a target, validate information about the target, and so on. When you let a machine do it, and shift the burden from these intelligence officers to someone without the same skill set who’s only task is to review information given to them by a source which they are told is competent and their role is to click yes/no, you lose the connection between this step and the next.

The same could be said, for example, about someone who has the technical proficiency to create new records, new sheets, new displays, etc. in an electronic health record. A particular doctor might come and request a new page to make their workflow easier. Without appropriate governance in place and people who’s job is to observe the entire process, you can end up with issues where every doctor creates their own custom sheet, and now all of their patient information is siloed to each doctors workflow. Downstream processes such as the patient coming back to the same healthcare system, or the patient going to get a prescription, or the patient being sent to imaging or pathology or labs could then be compromised by this short-sighted approach.

For fields like the military which perhaps are not used to this kind of collaborative work, I can see how segmenting a workflow into individual units to increase the speed or efficiency of each step could seem like a way to make things much better, because there is no focus on the quality of what is output. This kind of misstep is extremely common in the application of AI because it often is put in where there are bottlenecks. As stated in the article-

“We [humans] cannot process so much information. It doesn’t matter how many people you have tasked to produce targets during the war — you still cannot produce enough targets per day.”

the goal here is purely to optimize for capacity, how many targets you can generate per day, rather than on a combination of both quality and capacity. You want a lot of targets? I can just spit out the name of every resident in your country in a very short period of time. The quality in this case (how likely they are to be a member of hamas) will unfortunately be very low.

The reason it’s so fucked up is that a lot of it is abstracted yet another level away from the decision makers. Ultimately it is the AI that’s making the decision, they are merely signing off on it. And they weren’t involved in signing off on the AI, so why should they question it? It’s a dangerous road - one where it becomes increasingly easy to allow mistakes to happen, except in this case the mistake can be counted as innocent lives that you killed.

They were going to kill these people whether an AI was involved or not, but it certainly makes it a lot easier to make a decision when you’re just signing off on a decision someone else made. The level of abstraction made certain choices easier. After all, if the system is known to be occasionally wrong and everyone seems to know it yet you’re still using it, is that not some kind of implicit acceptance?

One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. This was despite knowing that the system makes what are regarded as “errors” in approximately 10 percent of cases, and is known to occasionally mark individuals who have merely a loose connection to militant groups, or no connection at all.

It also doesn’t surprise me that when you’ve demonized the opposition, it becomes a lot easier to just be okay with “casualties” which have nothing to do with your war. How many problematic fathers out there are practically disowned by their children for their shitty beliefs? Even if there were none, it still doesn’t justify killing someone at home because it’s ‘easier’

Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

All in all this is great investigative reporting, and it’s absolutely tragic that this kind of shit is happening in the world. This piece isn’t needed to recognize that a genocide is happening and it shouldn’t detract from the genocide in any way.

As an aside, I also help it might get people to wake up and realize we need to regulate AI more. Not that regulation will probably ever stop the military from using AI, but this kind of use should really highlight the potential dangers.

Popping in because this comment got reported- a reminder to you and everyone in this thread to do your best to be nice to each other. If you’re getting heated or exhausted over this discussion it might be a good idea to step away. 💜

She tried to paint ACOs as the brainchild of UHG specifically, as a means to extract wealth from an existing system. That ignores the current state of ACOs and the many which are able to reduce overall healthcare costs and in many cases reduce administrative costs. Yes, the US healthcare system is broken. Yes, it’s very simple to view this as a “band aid on a fundamentally flawed system” and yes, there’s still room for “corruption to continue”. None of that is in conflict with what I stated. I merely took issue with the framing that UHG is responsible for the creation of ACOs and VBC as that’s just factually incorrect, and it suggests the framing that ACOs are not providing any value to the system or being useful in any way- this is contradicted in the article I linked as well as plenty of other published literature by organizations which are notably not UHG.

Explaining what an ACO and what VBC are is far outside the scope of the educational burden I’m willing to take on. Instead, have some links:

• Here’s a high level review article on accountable care organizations in the United States.
• Here’s a high level review article on value based care and what it includes in the United States.

I’m not sure how to answer your question in a manner which doesn’t touch on the same points the author brings forward. Was something they said unclear or are there parts of my comment which you’d like me to elaborate upon?

Accountable care organization. VBC = value based care.

But a lot of this is simply board members and C-Suite not allocating enough dollars for proper hardware, software, and strongly knowledgeable minds to implement good security.

The stolen data was encrypted, so all the hackers were doing was stopping business from being run. With that being said, if you think it’s just about ‘implementing good security’ I think you’re out of depth when it comes to just how large of an attack vector it is and how sophisticated the attacks can be. We’re talking about an industry where people are willing to cough up millions of dollars to recover data in some cases, meaning that it attracts some of the best talent in the world to coordinate attacks and the attacks can be extremely sophisticated.

To me it sounded like they were saying ACO and VBC are both bad. In fact, it kinda felt like they were attributing their creation to UHG as some kinda malicious moneymaking scheme.

The author of this article has a clear bias and lets this bias lead their perception of accountable care organizations (ACO), despite it being perhaps the only existing lever within our system by which preventative and population health measures can actually be adopted. This complete misread of ACO and VBC (value based care) makes it difficult to view anything else the author says with credit. Which is a shame, because a fair deal of this history I’m familiar with and I completely agree that UHG is a fucking capitalistic nightmare plague on US healthcare costs.

Another day another ruling by the supreme court to erode any confidence in their ability to do anything correctly. Rather than addressing a problem head on, we shall instead hyperfocus on the way it worked itself through our court system to avoid any responsibility at this time.

I don’t want to discount the findings too harshly, because I believe that democrats have a ton of issues with their voters in general and can only go on promising everything but delivering nothing for so long before people wisen up, but I do want to just gently remind everyone how accurate polling was in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles and its general decline among the population as a way to understand how people vote. Polling groups have not adapted to the times and frequently demand far too much out of a population which is overburdened and simply not interested in engaging with pollsters through archaic mediums and conventional means of identifying who is eligible to be polled are not applicable to a modern populace.

Well stated. Once again, thank you for all the hard work you do around here!

This is a reminder to everyone that we have one rule on beehaw and that you need to follow it or you will catch a ban and if these comments turn into a slug fight we will lock them