Although in that article, most of the horrors are coming from the human operators - there’s what comes off as a pretty strong disinterest in finding reasons to distrust the machine.
It was an excellent and detailed piece on the various systems, and their use by Israel in the Gaza conflict.
>> In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants.
I believe the laws of war as commonly understood authorise civilian casualties insofar as they are "proportionate". 1:20 is technically a proportion, but...
Btw, the proportionality requirement in the law of armed conflict relates civilian casualties not with military casualties but rather the military advantage gained. The military advantages of killing a single low-level Hamas combatant are rather limited, and thus the room for civilian casualties should be rather limited as well.
Proportionate in war is not about going tit-for-tat.
> The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
The way it's worded is to prevent destroying civilian targets for no military gain.
There's one quote in that article that continues to make my blood boil:
> "You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people"
This, regarding the bombing houses full of civilians, because an infantryman might have been inside. This, in a statement by somebody who is critical of the AI effort. By being more concerned at the loss of munitions; the true basis of the calculation is revealed. The IDF -- even those members who are actively critical of it -- views its enemies not as humans, but as vermin to be exterminated. This is genocide, pure and simple.
The names of the systems are “The Gospel” and “Lavender”! How is it that a Jewish army is using Christian references for their AI killing systems? I don’t think that is unintentional.
That’s a stretch considering any Jewish person I’ve ever known would immediately associate “The Gospel” with Christianity and what officially their religion considers as a blasphemy and heresy. There is absolutely no possible way that whomever named the system wasn’t consciously linking it and invoking the religious connotation.
Correct. The Jewish people think of the Gospel as "that which the masses blindly accept as true but we know internally to be false" which is apt given what they have intended to use it for.
Which perhaps they even expounded on by using “Lavender” which potentially is something Christians may have mis-associated with Jesus’s birth (see parallel comments on Lavender). The message to Christian’s is clear - “thanks for all the funding, you’re a bunch of fools, and we are killing our enemies in your name”
Lavender's history has biblical roots. It is referred to as Spikenard in the Bible. Mary used it on the infant Jesus and anointed Jesus after the crucifixion when she was preparing him for burial. So it has a "life and death" connotation which makes a lot of sense when you think of the system as a roulette for those chosen to die.
Sources? What Christ was offered in his birth was myrrh (by one of the Magi) and his body was wrapped in myrrh after his death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrrh#In_the_New_Testament). Myrrh and Lavender seem to be very different. Is there some popular association of the two (like yams with sweet potatoes)?
A quick google search for “lavender christianity” shows many many people have associated them together, possibly with some historical or primary source inconsistencies, however it’s very obvious connected. In addition to search engines a conversation with any LLM has them immediately explain the connection.
Now you might be correct there is some mis-associating from a purely academic standpoint and that actually makes it even more interesting the IDF used it as a name, considering the other name is “The Gospel”. Isn’t the message to Christians - “you’re idiots and we kill our enemies using AI systems named to make fun of you”?
I was raised Greek Orthodox and that's not a message I receive at all. I commented as above because for me there is no association between Christianity and lavender. Asking others who were also raised Greek Orthodox, lavender has no special meaning for any of us at all. To clarify, that's not from an academic standpoint, but from the point of view of tradition.
Perhaps it's a Catholic or Protestant thing, but, if so, I don't know where it comes from. I used to love reading the New Testament and I really don't remember any mention of lavender at all. It could be an Old Testament thing though, so, to be fair, more Jewish than Christian. In Greek Orthodox practice the aromatic of choice is frankincense (every church smells of it because the priests burn it in long-chained incense burners that they swing wildly left and right during liturgy), and, separately, myrrh (although that's associated with death and funerals, I guess). Lavender we mainly use to keep moths off clothes, to be honest. I got small muslin-wrapped packets of it in my closet.
I also am not sure why Israelis would want to send a message to Christians about an AI system used to kill mainly Muslims. I mean, in practice, the Israelis enemies are Arabs who tend to be Muslim, so why would they send a message to Christians?
In any case, can you please share some of the information you found in your quick googling? I'm curious to see what people say. I had a quick look online also and couldn't really find anything specific. The wikipedia page on lavender also lists no specific relation with Christianity, as opposed e.g. for myrrh and frankincense.
There is definitely a large groups of Catholics and Protestants who are associating Lavender with Virgin Mary, Jesus’s birth, and others who believe it goes back to the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.
One hypothesis is a confusing Spikenard, here is what GPT4 says about that:
> Yes, there can be some confusion between spikenard and lavender, partly due to historical naming conventions and translations of ancient texts. The confusion often stems from the use of the term "nard" or "spikenard" in historical texts, including the Bible, and how it has been interpreted or translated over the centuries.
> Spikenard (Nardostachys jatamansi) and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) are indeed different plants, both botanically and in terms of their historical and cultural significance. However, the confusion might arise because both were used in ancient times for their aromatic properties and were considered valuable for perfumes, medicinal purposes, and religious rituals.The term "nard" comes from the Sanskrit word "narada," while "spikenard" refers specifically to Nardostachys jatamansi. The translation and interpretation of ancient texts, like the Bible, have sometimes led to a blending of these plant identities, especially when the specific botanical knowledge of the original texts was not fully understood or when names were translated in ways that did not precisely match the botanical realities.Additionally, the historical trade of these substances, along with others, through ancient markets might have contributed to the blending of their identities. Merchants and consumers across different cultures might not have always distinguished clearly between the two, especially given the value placed on aromatic herbs and oils in ancient times for both practical and symbolic uses.Despite these confusions, modern botanical and historical scholarship distinguishes clearly between spikenard and lavender, recognizing their unique characteristics and the distinct roles they have played in history and tradition.
As far as the message from IDF, my understanding is the true believers of Orthodox Judaism are actually both anti-muslim and anti-christian. The hidden message I take is “you Christians are fools, easily tricked, we have tricked you also, we laugh at you behind your back, and desecrate your beliefs as our weapons of war”.
Do you have a source that corroborates GPT4? It is well-known that it can happily generate unsubstantiated information.
>> As far as the message from IDF, my understanding is the true believers of Orthodox Judaism are actually both anti-muslim and anti-christian. The hidden message I take is “you Christians are fools, easily tricked, we have tricked you also, we laugh at you behind your back, and desecrate your beliefs as our weapons of war”.
Isn't that just a little bit too much to infer from a single word? If they wanted to send a message to Christians, why not choose something obvious like "Cross" or "Golgotha" or "Herod"?
I don’t think it’s too much to infer, for me it’s extremely obvious, especially considering the religious history.
People don’t realize that Orthodox Jews literally spit at Christian worshipers in Israel.
We have to admit what is going on here. The IDF built multiple AI killing machines with US and Western money (Christian money) and then named them intentionally offensively and with direct hostility to Christianity. There is absolutely no possibility that the people who selected the name “The Gospel” and “Lavender” were not doing so in a religious context.
From a religious standpoint Islam and Christianity are incredibly close. Orthodox Jews only view Christians as useful idiots in their agenda not as religious allies, quite the opposite.
Regarding Lavender - copilot with references below. However I think you are likely correct that the accuracy of the connection is potentially flawed, however it’s the beliefs that matter, and a large number of Christians believe there is a direct connection.
Lavender has *profound connections* to divine symbolism within *Christianity*. Here are some references for you to review:
1. *Biblical Meaning of Lavender*:
- Lavender's spiritual essence is depicted in various contexts within biblical scripture.
- It is considered a powerful tool for *spiritual purification* in Christianity.
- The scent of lavender uplifts the spirit, fosters inner peace, and aids in establishing a connection with the Divine¹.
2. *Folklore and Symbolism*:
- When a woman washed Jesus' feet, the lotion she applied contained lavender.
- Mary, Jesus' mother, hung his swaddling clothes on a lavender bush, transferring his scent to the plant.
- As a result, lavender came to represent *cleanliness* and *purity* in Christian symbolism³.
3. *Spiritual Benefits*:
- Lavender is associated with calmness, purification, and tranquility.
- It is closely linked with the *crown chakra*, which connects to spiritual realms.
- Smelling lavender during meditation and yoga can purify and cleanse the air, aiding in spiritual practices⁵.
Feel free to explore these references further to deepen your understanding of the connection between lavender and Christianity!
Christianity:
• Jesus ascended into Heaven
• Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, & the final prophet
• Jesus’ soul & body are in heaven
• Jesus will return to destroy Satan and establish peace on earth
• Jesus came from a virgin birth
• Jesus performed miracles
Islam:
• Jesus ascended into Heaven
• Jesus is the word of God, and his messenger and a deliverer of the scripture
• Jesus’ soul & body are in heaven
• Jesus will return with Imam Mahdi to destroy a False Messiah and establish peace on earth
• Jesus came from a virgin birth
• Jesus performed miracles
Judaism:
• Jesus did not ascend
• Jesus was the most damaging false Messiah
• Jesus is in boiling excrement in Hell.
• Jesus will not return
• Jesus had a normal birth
• His miracles were of the devil
Those don't seem like references that have anything to do with Christian tradition and practice, certainly not as I understand it from my background. For example, meditation is not a Christian concept.
I would kindly suggest that if you want to understand the meaning of Christian symbolism you should rely on the New Testament and possibly the Old Testament also. You don't need internet searches and chatbots for that.
Or, of course, you could chat with a Christian.
Specifically for this:
>> However I think you are likely correct that the accuracy of the connection is potentially flawed, however it’s the beliefs that matter, and a large number of Christians believe there is a direct connection.
That is what needs a source and I can't find one in what you have provided. Who says that "a large number of Christians believe..." etc? In my experience, nobody I know who is Christian believes that.
> That is what needs a source and I can't find one in what you have provided. Who says that "a large number of Christians believe..." etc? In my experience, nobody I know who is Christian believes that.
I’m in the US and every Catholic I’ve asked associates Lavender with faith. Several of the references I gave are directly Christian themed sources.
We know Christianity is very diverse and has numerous interpretations. I think it’s possible in more Orthodox leaning cultures that Lavender is substituted.
Regarding Old and New Testament, I certainly agree those are the primary and authoritative sources and as I referenced earlier the translations are in dispute and likely source of this confusion. Different traditions appear to have differing translations of the underlying plants being mentioned.
Well that's a good point. I guess I'll ask some Catholics and Protestants about it. It's true that there may have been mistranslations of the Gospels over the years. Come to think of it, that would explain a whole lot.
that may be so, but lavender being a Christian reference seems a bit of a stretch to me. it may well be referred to in the bible, but so are thousands of other things. to me it sounds more like they're giving them light and positive names that bely their destruction in a dark and comical manner
It's a form of ideological hand-washing, they don't want to link the killing to their own religion but it's ok to link the other well known religion. Coincidentally hand washing refers to the story in St. Matthew’s gospel, when Pontius Pilate ‘washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person’.
There must be a line somewhere between "pretty strong disinterest in finding reasons to distrust the machine" and "using the machine as plausible deniability for doing what you hoped to do anyway"; is there a relatively simple description of this line, or is it a fractal boundary?
Yeah, I phrased that as generously as possible because I didn’t really want to kick that particular hornets’ nest, but the article does a fine job making that point.
Very charitable of you! (do we need an emoticon for charity, like we have for sarcasm? symmetry would suggest yes.)
Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that these situations are exactly why the Geneva Conventions[0] require combatants to have (a) uniforms, and (b) a command structure:
(a) prevents someone low from disingenuously stopping the buck by claiming "tweren't no orders; I'm acting on my own"
(b) prevents someone high from arguing as Uber does: "you see, we're not a traditional army that gives orders to our fighters — we just provide a service that matches attackers and targets online, and really, anything bad that allegedly happened was only between those two parties"[1]
[0] if we're not doing these anymore, just go ahead and tell me "the future is now, old man", and I'll take my mutterings to the pétanque piste.
[1] > "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun —TAL
> Morality-washing was always going to be one of the first uses of AI
They even made a cruel joke by naming the automated killing system "Lavender". Lavender flowers were used in clothes washing since ancient times. The name of the flower cames from the Latin word for washing. Portuguese inherited it, for example, with the word for lavender, "lavanda", sounding similar to the verb to wash, "lavar".
”Machines never make the decision, they’re merely collecting data to assist human operatives”
They’ll keep saying this forever, and there’s a shroud of plausible deniability to it! Not to mention it can soothe the conscience of the operatives who have to live with their decisions - they don’t even have to look through the family photos - the AI has already filtered out the suspicious parts. In reality, it’s a good ole recommendation engine, just like Netflix or TikTok. And when you’re tired, have too much work stacked up, you’ll be more likely to let autoplay take over – or approve the strike of someone’s home.
To those that think this is harsh: please read the article. It’s that bad.
It's not a matter of being tired and having to catch up. The operators are explicitly instructed to treat the AI results as orders without questioning the results.
In other words, operators are threatened with punishment if they take the time to inspect the results more closely before following orders. It's not even an option!
> In order to speed up target elimination, *soldiers have been ordered to treat Lavender-generated targets as an order, rather than something to be independently checked*, the investigation found. Soldiers in charge of manually checking targets spent only seconds on each person, sources said, merely to make sure the target was a man. Children are also considered legitimate targets by Lavender.
Right! The extreme point of laziness/stress is just pressing approve. At which point the machine is making the de-facto decision.
In either case, the role of the recommendation engine is immensely impactful, as we already know from consumer products. But here the software engineers are directly involved in life-and-death decisions at scale. I really hope they know that.
They know that because it was designed to increase civilian casualties by unprecedented civilian:"combatant" ratios and confidence levels. These were design requirements, not faults.
The notable element of this news is not that the decision-making was automated. It's that they set the civilian collateral death ratio to ~100 (and other details such as considering children to be valid combatant targets), regardless of whether the process that arrives at that was automated or not.
The Guardian article on this had quotes from the "operators" involved. They don't question or examine any of the output just hit approve.
The only apparent operator act that seems to be something they are involved in is turning the dial up or down to get more or less "hits". Depressingly this appears to be related to superiors shouting at them as they don't have enough targets.
When you're a tiny, easily overtaken (geographically) country with genocidal neighbours and your race and religion is a global minority, of course you're going to be bullish on taking out threats to it, and your people, and less caring about collateral damage. Your nation is under threat from almost all sides
Using one of the most biased and anti-israel as a source what could go wrong?
Edit: A different and less biased title would be: the use of technology and AI to minimize civilian casualties in guerrilla warfare. No? How much civilians did US kill during Vietnam war? There was no AI then and the Vietnamese didnt murder and rape civilian Americans did they?Edit 2: downvote me until it gets removed and you enjoy your echo chamber of beliefs.
> the use of technology and AI to minimize civilian casualties in guerrilla warfare
The article makes it quite clear this is not what’s happening and not why the systems are in use. They’re being used to generate a target list faster than could be done by traditional methods, and are being used despite agreeing with traditional methods only 90% of the time. They’re being used to accelerate the war, not make it more accurate.
I think those differences are primarily due to Gaza being urban guerilla warfare with Hamas not wearing uniforms and Ukraine being conventional warfare with frontlines.
Look at the battles of Grozny for a more apt comparison of Russian urban warfare.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai...
Although in that article, most of the horrors are coming from the human operators - there’s what comes off as a pretty strong disinterest in finding reasons to distrust the machine.