----------------

Maven is a tool for use in the middle of a war. When both sides are firing, minutes saved can mean lives saved for your side. Those lives, at least partly, balance the risks of hitting a bad target.

This was not a strike made in the middle of a war. If Maven was used in the strike that took out a school, it was being used as part of a sneak attack. Nobody was shooting back while this was being planned. Minutes saved were not lives saved. There should have been a priority placed on getting the targets right. Humans should have been double and triple checking every target by other means. This clearly didn't happen. The school was obviously a school that even had its own website. Humans would have spotted this if they had done more than make their three clicks and move on to the next target.

Whoever made the choice to use Maven to plan a sneak attack without careful checking made an unforced error when they had all the time in the world to prevent it. Whether it was overconfidence in their tools or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians that caused this lapse, they are directly responsible for the deaths of those little girls. I sincerely hope there are (although I doubt there will be) consequences for this person beyond taking that guilt to their grave.

This article is the first I have seen mention of Claude in relation to this specific incident. There's been plenty of talk about AI use in warfare in general but in the case of this school most of the coverage I have seen suggested outdated information and procedures not properly followed.

https://x.com/clashreport/status/2029574288253026510 https://x.com/tparsi/status/2029555364262228454

Our operational level of war is junk. We have forgotten how to create a task force that has has a clear mission with a clear duration, resources, battlespace, ROE and, most importantly, authority to act. McChrystal 'rediscovered' empowering small teams that every flag officer rediscovers eventually in war. If your supporting the commander's cycle means enabling them to make all the decisions then you have just decided to loose the war. They can't make all the decisions. They need to expand that decision making power. That is their job. Build teams that have the authority and resources. Let those teams, if needed, also build teams if the problem is too big. Most importantly though, let those teams act. If you can't trust those commanders to make decisions and act on them then you shouldn't have put them in the job. Divide and conquer is the only solution here and the JTS/AOC model of warfare is the antithesis of this.

From a certain angle, the entire industrial and computer age looks like a massive effort to remove all responsibility for our actions, permanently.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47540422

The submission here is flagged dead though.

IRGC is making claims that no other party can verify first-hand. Everything from the number of explosions, the extent of the physical damage, the number of wounded and dead, the number of civilians wounded and dead - these are all unverified claims and should be treated as such. Not only is the IRGC obviously biased and incentivized to maximize media pressure on the US and Israel: they are known for information warfare of exactly this nature. To take their statements at face value, and present them as established facts in the opening paragraph, as this article does, is journalistic malpractice.

Again, the basic facts on the ground are not known, yes all parties are projecting narratives with a certainty that we should all be suspicious of.

Without this stable foundation of knowing what actually happened, and why, the very premise of this article collapses on itself.

EDIT: the flurry of responses to this post illustrate the problem. It's difficult to even have a respectful, fact-driven discussion on this topic, because everyone is tempted (and encouraged) to rush to their political battle stations. Nobody wants to discuss information warfare, because they're too busy engaging in it. I think that's worrying and problematic. No matter which "side" you're on, it should be possible to distinguish what is known and what is not; and implementing basic information hygiene. Or do you think you are uniquely immune to disinformation?

> Within days, the question that organised the coverage was whether Claude, a chatbot made by Anthropic, had selected the school as a target.

Really? Everyone thought the US had *missed*.

It's still people doing people things.

They've now burnt though almost ONE THOUSAND of those

They cost $4 million each, so that's another $4 BILLION that has to be replaced too

Imagine several more months of that or even through 2029

And then in Afghanistan and Iraq the US terrified of every shadow blew up anything that looked suspicious- again only serving their enemies.

It is all just so damn tiresome and America never learns because it literally cannot go 5 years without starting some unnecessary and ultimately futile conflict.

Imagine how much money China is saving.

The intentional murder of enemy children is a tactic of the IDF. They've done it for decades.

Would it be poor taste to make joke about gradle being superior here? The dad in me really wants to make that joke...

https://www.reuters.com/technology/palantir-faces-challenge-...

Going into a generic rant about anti-AI people after missing sources and believing the Department of War is just extremely poor journalism from the newspaper that destroyed evidence after a command from GCHQ.

I hope this is a single "journalist" and that the Guardian has not been bought.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop...

This unknown Guardian contributor writes a missive against "Luddites" while using the typical AI booster arguments that always turn around anti AI arguments.

Just like two five year olds: "You have a big nose." "No, you have a big nose."

We learn from this clown that anti AI people suffer from AI psychosis because they are reading WaPo and Reuters.