It's the former, but from what I read in the article, a shady version of that is my take.

The computer basically appeared to randomise a high number of people to kill based on a very shallow dataset, weak data linking and a high desire to kill people who are Palestinian.

It's hard to read the details from the Guardian article and think of it as anything other than a randomised Israeli state murder machine. I can't envisage it being accurate to a point any reasonable person would accept it be used against someone they know, in any circumstances.

That it targeted 10's of thousands is utterly horrifying. That it was involved in any actual battleground scenario makes me think those involved in it's creation and sale are culpable.

Sorry. Guns do kill people. That's their whole point.

I know roughly ~1000 people. Maybe 10 of them have the physical capability of killing someone, in case you don't know, it's not actually that easy to do it yourself.

Of those not all could mentally do it under anything but the most extreme of circumstances. 2, maybe 3 might be actually capable of ending a life under extreme circumstances.

With a gun probably, at a guess, ~400 - 700 could kill someone if they got anxious/scared enough is my bet. Even if I'm way off it's a lot more than without a gun. Couple of hundred at least. Not 2, or 3!

So yes, I'm sorry, guns definitely, 100% kill people.

And more people will absolutely kill someone if they possess a gun, than if the didn't. And by extension same is true if AI.

I'm interested how you even come up with that response? It's obviously factually and logically wrong. What makes you think it makes a reasonable argument to anyone?

Also, worth pointing out, thar AI in this case is insanely unfit for it's purpose (unlike a gun) and will have randomly killed lots of innocent people, even if the AI algorithm says otherwise.

The line gets blurred a little here though.

I give you a gun and say "shoot whoever you choose with this gun, the choice is yours".

I give you an AI powered gun and say "use this however you choose, I have programmed it to automatically shoot in certain circumstances".

In the latter case, I have some responsibility, because I shared in the decision making by programming the gun. Through my code I have put my proverbial finger on the trigger, right next to your finger.

Hard to say without knowing all the facts, but it's quite reasonable to hold those who are accessories to atrocities responsible as well.

That's like saying "defibrillators don't save people, people save people".

Said people are trusting the intel from the AI. Those who provide that intel possible should shoulder responsibility for its effects, or at least its efficacy.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

this is such BS argument, before guns you could still kill people but it'd take a lot more effort & organization to kill en-masse. same deal if you apply this logic to nukes or missiles. yes those people should be held responsible but there should be a systematic regulation of AI-robot killing machines just like we have geneva accords for cluster munitions or unusually cruel weapons. this is just common sense 101.

Sorry but from an AI system that targets individuals to a system that kills them (they already have autonomous drones with computer vision) there is max 1-2 web services path. So AI kills people