> we're still just indiscriminately killing civilians just as always, so giving AI control is fine

I don't even want to respond because the "we" and "as always" here is doing a lot. I don't have it in me to have an extended discussion to address how indiscriminately killing civilians was never accepted practice in modern warfare. Anyways.

There are two conditions in which I see this argument(?) is useful. If you assume their goal is indiscriminately killing civilians and ML helps them, or if you assume that their ML tools cause less precise targeting of militants that causes more civilians being dead contrary to intent. Which one is it? Cards on the table.

> We're talking about potential consequences of giving AIs influence on military decisions

No, I replied to a comment that was talking about a specific example.

> I don't have it in me to have an extended discussion to address how indiscriminately killing civilians was never accepted practice in modern warfare.

I did not claim it is/was accepted practice. I was asking if "doing it with AI is just the same so what's the big deal" was your position on the general issue (of AI making decisions in war), which I thought was a possible interpretation of your previous comment.

> No, I replied to a comment that was talking about a specific example.

OK. That means the two of us were/are just talking past each other and won't be having an interesting discussion.

> doing it with AI is just the same so what's the big deal

Is that implying fewer civilian deaths is NOT a big deal?

I think the parents and children of people who were killed would disagree with you.