Pentagon AI more ethical than adversaries’ because of ‘Judeo-Christian society,’ USAF general says::The path to ethical AI is a “very important discussion” being held at DOD’s “very highest levels,” says service’s programs chief.

  • finkrat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Judeo-Christian society” has been airstriking the Middle East for years and provoking wars for a lot longer than that which is a violation of Christian beliefs (“Do to others what you would have them do to you”, among others) so they can kindly shove it up their warmongering ass

  • LostMyRedditLogin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    When an air force general uses a term like Judeo-Christian that is worrying. The brainwashing runs high. There’s no such thing as Judeo-Christian. Judaism and Christianity are vastly different religions albeit related. It’s a propaganda term to create an emotional tie with the US and Israel. No one says Judeo-Islam or Judeo-Mormon because it’s idiotic.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You could talk about abrahamic religions, that encompasses Judaism, Christianism, and Islamism because in theory all three worship the same God, but of course they are never grouped like that because they don’t want to be related with Muslims.

    • Aidinthel@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      100% agreed. These people only care about Jews in so far as they are useful political props. Ask the members of the Tree of Life synagogue or the passengers of the MS St Louis how much of “Judeo-Christian” society we are.

    • Colitas92@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Also 100% agreed. If anyone really wants a more inclusive term with positive vibes, i already read ‘‘abrahamic heritage’’ , to include jews, christians and muslims going for the commom ties of the mutually recognized first patriarch. It was a random french scholar though, but maybe we can gain traction. God (the abrahamic god) would be pleased.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Can confirm.

        My uncle used to fly F-15s for the Air NG, and about 10 or 15 years ago when he had to retire for medical reasons (turns out pulling G’s all the time is bad for your back), he just broke evangelical and is now a fundamentalist pastor.

    • GFGJewbacca@ag.batlord.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I came in here to say just this. I’m a Jewish clergyman, so I deal with this kind of shit a lot. The term isn’t just brainwashing; it’s actively seeking to erase Judaism as part of Christianity. It’s shit like this, combined with Christian Nationalism, which makes me jumpy at first when someone identifies as a Christian.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        From an armchair political science hot take, it signals something akin to worldwide NATO, inclusive rather than anti-semetic.

        Certainly tons of baseless anti semetic crap does exist, i just don’t see this concept that way.

        • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          On its face, I’d agree, but the term is used almost exclusively by the hyper-right wing. No one outside of that sphere uses the term (at least as far as I’ve experienced).

            • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe it’s regional or a recent change; it’s been a minute since I was in high school, and my university studies were not in the humanities.

    • toasteecup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      God I appreciate you and this comment so much. Thank you for acknowledging something us Jews suffer to point out constantly.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kinda sounds like they mean it follows their personal ethics and religious rules more closely than others, not that it’s actually more ethical.

    Ethics are entirely subjective.

    I would argue that any system that follows the rules of a religious society is deeply unethical.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    our society is a Judeo-Christian society and we have a moral compass.

    And here I thought the US was a secular country. Very worrisome that some government employees are using these words.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, because the Old Testament is all peace and love and kumbaya.
    Another dipshit military lifer inserting subjective religious arrogance - whatever religion it may be - into his spiel, details at eleven.

    • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think if you taught ethics to an AI based on the Bible and gave it the power it would quickly destroy the world. Oh that’s right, they made a bunch of sci-fi movies about that starring an Austrian body builder.

  • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah let’s make sure AI is ethical by some religious standard before we put it in charge of the nuclear arsenal. What an ass.

  • spicysoup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    is there nottheonion on Lemmy yet? because this belongs on there. jfc what a time to be alive

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    tl;dr: The headline is false; the general did not actually say that. I thought it sounded wrong, so I watched the video that the article linked to, to check. Sure enough, it was wrong. However, the reality may not be any more reassuring.


    Hypothesis: Like, no, that’s obviously wrong; either the headline is trash or the general made a whole tossed salad with mango sauce out of whatever the people working on it said. (stated before further investigation; stay tuned)


    Updating: https://youtu.be/wn1yEovtYRM?t=3459


    Okay, wow.

    So the speaker is saying this at the end of the panel, in response to a question asking about the use of autonomous weapons.

    They want to talk about who’s trusted to make the decision of whether to employ lethal force in a combat situation: a human American soldier, who might be exhausted and not thinking clearly, or an algorithm that doesn’t get tired.

    And one thing they mention is that an enemy might not have ethics that would lead them them even care about that distinction. And they express that as “Judeo-Christian morality”.

    That doesn’t sit right with me. It sounds to me, in that moment, like they’re implying that people from other cultures could be less moral, and that we should be willing to be more free with our weapons towards such people. That sounds to me like the sort of bullshit that came out of the Vietnam War.

    But the rest of the answer sounds like they’re trying to point at the problem of making command decisions in scenarios where the opponent might deploy autonomous weapons first. If the enemy has already handed decision-making over to an algorithm, how does that affect what we should do?

    And they’re maybe expressing that to their expected audience — mind you, the Air Force is heavily infiltrated by far-right Christian radicals — in a way that they hope makes sense.


    Conclusion: The headline is incorrect; the general did not actually say that a Pentagon AI would be more ethical for any reason; he was talking about the human ethical decision of whether to trust AI to make decisions. But what he did say is complicated and scary for different reasons, including the internal culture of the US Air Force.

  • jmhdBV8l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As I understand it, of the branches, the Air Force is the worst for neocon evangelicals. What a quote! It gives me shivers.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well I just lost some faith in the United States Air Force. Now I’m worried if we can trust them with General Electric 2.1 megaton hydrogen bombs. The USAF has more than a few.

    • Raltoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The US military has a wide range of generals, all the way from people who can barely stop themselves from dribbling while staring at a wall for hours as entertainment, to actual competent ones.

      At least this guy is just a moron, some of them are very dangerous. For example US Army General Wesley Clark, who ordered someone to basically start WW3, which didn’t go through because several officers refused to listen to him. Then he ran for president as a democrat, withdres. He later started a consulting firm and now runs a “boutique investment bank”.

      • drspod@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, however, refused to block the Russians through military action saying “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you.”[80][81] Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians, instead insisting that troops led by Captain James Blunt encircle the airfield.

        No way! James Blunt, of all people, appears in this story?! You couldn’t make it up!

        • rekliner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Huh, I didn’t click the Wikipedia link until I read your comment because I assumed it was a name coincidence. Man, that guy has had one hell of a life.