BSpencer Ackerman dropped a line on Al Jazeera today that should make everyone pause: in AI warfare, we have something that sounds precision-like, but it isn't about precision. It's about scale.
BScale meaning more targets, more speed, more volume.
BRight. The system scans thousands of data points, flags what it thinks is a threat, and sends it up the chain in seconds.
BAnd the argument for it is fewer civilian deaths, because the machine sees more than a human can.
BThat's the sales pitch. Ackerman's counter is that more scale doesn't mean more accuracy. It means more chances to get it wrong.
BBut humans get it wrong at a lower volume. You're comparing a flawed system to a slower, less informed system.
BNo, I'm saying when a human makes a mistake, there's a moment of doubt. An AI doesn't doubt, it just moves to the next target.
BThat's not inherent. You can program thresholds, require human sign-off, slow it down.
BAnd in a war, the pressure is always to speed up. Commanders want the target list faster. That's the whole reason they bought it.
BSo the answer is to reject AI targeting entirely? That sounds like unilateral disarmament in a conflict where the other side won't hesitate.
BI'm not saying reject it. I'm saying stop calling it precision. It's industrial-scale targeting with a learning curve.
BAnd I'm saying industrial scale beats the alternative of blind spots. You can't hold a machine to perfection while humans miss the same things.
BFine, we both want safeguards. But Ackerman's line is the honest one: AI is scale, and scale cuts both ways.
BThe full Al Jazeera episode with Josh Rushing and retired General Mark Kimmitt is worth a watch. They go deeper than we just did.
BMeanwhile, the scale problem is alive in the rumor mill today. A crypto account called Syndicate Finance is screaming that Iran is in advanced stages of planned attacks on Americans, citing Fox News.
BIs it finance news or war news? The hashtags say crypto, but the headline says Iran.
BNo official confirmation. Politifact doesn't have it. Right now it's a claim bouncing around.
BAnd a separate account claims Yemen's Houthi group attacked Saudi oil facilities and there are missile strikes in Aden. Also unverified.
BBBC Verify has no credible source confirming either one. So two scary headlines, zero proof so far.
BThis is exactly the problem with AI and scale, by the way. Bad claims scale faster than good reporting.
BFair point. But it also means we need human editors more than ever, not less.
BGood place to leave it. If official word comes, we'll break it.