Posted by choult 3 hours ago
Carving out the particular military engagements your company deems less than justified sounds nice but isn't workable in practice. You have to swallow the whole pill if you want to sell to the DoD.
Archive URL to original paper
[1] https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2029575052535173364
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/6/elementary-school-in...
You or your subordinates target an elementary school: that's a war crime.
Your "battlefield AI" targets an elementary school: software bug, it happens, can't be helped.
Also this is a vast underestimate of the ability of organizations that were able to locate most of Iranian leadership throughout the war in their hiding places, but suddenly their Farsi is so bad they need a twitter account to tell them this is a Park
You want consensus from non-experts for a plan to use 20 smart bombs.
Your opponent wants consensus for a plan to live-stream a demo of 1 smart bomb, and then use 19 dumb ones.
Your team has more expertise.
Your opponent's plan saves enough money to buy a better PR team than yours, and is still more cost effective than your plan.
Who wins?
It appears IBM learned no lessons after WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
That book will need a sequel soon.
[1] https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38...
Some of the earlier Red Hat people I knew would not be OK with working on weapons systems even under the most legitimate circumstances. And they'd be much more opposed to collaborating with fascist regimes. And I think horrified by the idea of shoveling AI slop and grifter hype into life&death decisions.
Of course the tech industry makeup has changed (overall culture transitioning from hacker idealists, to finance bros), and some IBM-ification of Red Hat has has also happened. But I'd like to think Red Hat still attracts a more principled pool of talent than FAANG.
Can we rename this "RedHat removes paper from website on using their software to 'shrink the kill-chain'"