The military's new AI says boat strike 'unambiguously illegal'
san.comhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/1pijkwc/secdefgpt...
relevant thread on reddit
The prompt did not include the fact that Trump declared them to be terrorists which I believe is what makes that kind of attack legal. If they are enemy combatants you are allowed to follow up and ensure they have been killed
> If they are enemy combatants you are allowed to follow up and ensure they have been killed
Not true. Launching an attack on shipwrecked enemy is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. [1, Chapter II Article 12] It's also prohibited by DoD's own guidelines. [2, page 1071, section 17.14]
It's not a question of whether or not what happened was illegal, it's a textbook example of a war crime. It's a matter of whether or not the justice system still has enough power to identify who is responsible and hold them accountable.
[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/assets/treaties/370-GC-II-EN....
[2] https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD...
How is that different than the Nuremberg defense in combination with Hitler declaring Jews subhuman? One can claim Trump knowingly committed an international crime by declaring someone a terrorist when it would result in the US' criminality but the people involved are also guilty.
I didn't have "Skynet has moral objections to American military policy" on my 2025 bingo card...