Bolen C (Page 335)

There have been many TV shows and films inspired by the dual fear and excitement surrounding advances in artificial intelligence. But not many exhibit such masterful craft and profound humanity as the new Netflix anime miniseries Pluto.

[embedded content]

Pluto is adapted from a manga series of the same title (2003-2009), created by Naoki Urasawa and Takashi Nagasaki. The manga version – considered a comic masterpiece for its beautiful art and sophisticated storyline – incorporated fundamental elements from Osamu Tezuka’s celebrated manga series Astro Boy (1952-1968), including the beloved android adolescent who was the titular character.

Pluto is set in a futuristic world in which humans and robots coexist, albeit within a hierarchy in favor of humans. Robots excel in various jobs ranging from nannies and butlers to architects and detectives, but they are treated as second-class citizens.

Although robots gradually gain their own rights codified into law, they are still exploited by humans, who downplay their worth and emotional intelligence. As much as humans depend on AI, they also feel threatened by it.

An AI murder mystery

Pluto, which has both Japanese and English audio versions, follows German robot detective Gesicht (Shinshū Fuji/Jason Vande Brake) as he traces the mysterious killings of robots and humans. The world’s seven most advanced robots (including Gesicht himself) and robot-friendly humans (including his creator) are the targets of this assassination scheme.

What’s most perplexing is that the murders appear untraceable. This suggests that the killer might be a very advanced robot, challenging the belief that robots can’t ever kill humans due to their programmed constraints.

This enigmatic case echoes the cautionary message found in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein – beware of human beings’ ambitious dreams and creations. While the story begins as a murder mystery, it evolves into a thoughtful drama about the conflicted relationships between humans and androids.

While Pluto draws on many familiar sci-fi concepts, it distinguishes itself through its meticulous character development and the depth of its micro-stories. Every character is complex, and the audience is able to get to know them and become invested in their fates. The anime’s unhurried pace also allows viewers ample time to contemplate its philosophical questions about consciousness evolution and the powerful impacts of emotions.

Despite all its brilliance, however, the series is not without flaws. It has a dated representation of gender roles, with no female character – whether human or robot – playing an important part. None of them break free from the stereotypical role of nurturing, stay-behind support for their exceptionally capable and powerful male partners.

Animation of the year

Pluto maintains a melancholic tone throughout – but despite this overarching dark ambience, it is at times romantic and moving. It exalts love, friendship and compassion without falling into sentimentality, evoking an emotional resonance reminiscent of Blade Runner (1982).

The series emphasizes that life, or the process of living, imparts character and humanity, transcending biological organs and blood. Androids may initially be devoid of complex emotions, but they develop sentience through everyday experiences and interactions with fellow robots and humans.

Robots can even learn to appreciate music, as manifested by the charismatic North No.2 (Koichi Yamadera/Patrick Seitz), who was designed for intense combat but grows weary of warfare. The narrative underscores the simultaneous beauty and danger of emotions – particularly the destructive force of wrath.

With great technological advancements and comfort, this futuristic world is still torn by war. It poses the question: “Will war ever end?” – reminding us of the conflicts and tragedies happening in the real world. The anime suggests that an end to war is unlikely as long as hatred persists.

For me, with its beautiful art and riveting narrative, Pluto stands out as one of the best Netflix productions of all time. It’s certainly the best animated work of the year.

Thi Gammon is a research associate in culture, media and creative industries edducation at King’s College London.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

The Israeli military said on November 15, 2023, that it had found weapons and a Hamas command center at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, after sending troops into the medical facility.

Shifa has become the epicenter of Israel’s ground invasion into Gaza, as the Israeli military says that Hamas has strategically placed its fighters and weapons in a broad tunnel system that connects to the hospital, and that Hamas is using hospital workers and patients as human shields.

The US says its intelligence shows that Hamas, as The New York Times wrote, “has been using hospitals in Gaza, including Al-Shifa, as command centers and ammunitions depots.” Hamas has denied the allegations.

The hospital complex now houses about 700 patients, 400 health workers and 3,000 Palestinians who are displaced from their homes, according to United Nations figures.

This is far from the first time that a military group has allegedly used civilians to shield themselves and their weapons, says Benjamin Jensen, a war strategy expert from American University School of International Service who served 20 years in the military.

Jensen explained that civilians often become pawns in war when one side does not have a military advantage against a stronger adversary – and looks for other ways to weaken their opponent.

1. What purpose does using civilians to shield fighters serve in a conflict?

Using places and things civilians need, like hospitals, as a means to fight a war is considered a weapon of the weak. It is a way to use another side’s values against it.

I think it is clear that Hamas has – in this war and historically – tried to embed themselves and weapons in places civilians live or visit, in order to make it more difficult for the Israelis to target them.

One question in war is, “How do I raise the cost that my adversary has to incur in order to attack me?” Your goal is to gain a relative advantage at the lowest possible cost to yourself, and with the lowest possible benefit for your adversary.

And in this case, the costs to Israel are damage to its reputation and legitimacy, among some people, because of the civilians it is killing in Gaza while targeting Hamas.

2. Are fighters hiding behind or among civilians a new way of waging a war?

Using civilians to further a military advantage is not a new phenomenon.

We still have this ridiculous image of war looking like people lined up in neat rows, meeting each other in defined fields of battle. But that flies in the face of the actual history of warfare historically, and especially in the 21st century.

In the Japanese attack on the British stronghold of Singapore in 1942, during World War II, for example, one of the key features of Japan’s approach was to bomb people’s water sources, in order to more rapidly compel the British surrender.

We’ve seen adversaries in multiple modern conflicts hide behind or among civilians. It’s sad, because it means the only truth in war is that there will be tragedy, and civilians will pay the heaviest price.

3. Where else has this happened?

Even if you go back to the Vietnam War, you can find examples of the Viet Cong sometimes using the same routes or vehicles that were used for aid delivery to civilians. Wars dating back to the Bosnian civil war in the early 1990s are really where you start to see more examples of fighters trying to shield themselves with civilians or with UN peacekeepers, as happened in Bosnia.

We’ve seen the Taliban in Afghanistan hiding in civilians’ homes and in hospitals, as well as storing weapons in mosques. The Taliban were very good at being fluid and moving in and out of civilian areas that would make it difficult to strike them.

The battle of Mosul, between the Islamic State group and the Iraqi government from 2016 through 2017, was another example of this. The Islamic State fighters herded an estimated 100,000 civilians together and used them as civilian shields.

Even in the case of the Ukraine war, Russian President Vladimir Putin has openly declared war on the entire society of Ukraine. But it’s possible that some of Russia’s strikes against hospitals in Ukraine happened because Russian intelligence received information that Ukraine may or may not have been moving soldiers or items in and out of the hospital.

4. Do civilians sometimes willingly play the role of human shields?

It varies. Based on my experience, do I think it’s possible that the lead hospital administrators in Gaza know the full landscape of the labyrinth of tunnels underneath? No. Do I think one or two officials or a couple of janitors or part-time workers do? Yes. Do I also think that it’s possible that most people in a war zone are just trying to survive and they look the other way? Yes.

There’s this weird phenomenon for civilians in situations like this, in which they often know something’s going on. But also if you’re smart enough, you might not ask anything. Hamas was known to mistreat Palestinians before this war started.

5. How does Hamas allegedly using civilian shields complicate this war?

The answer depends on what your military is trying to achieve. If your idea is that you have to move faster than your adversary, then you are willing to probably assume a higher risk of civilian casualties and lose the information war – meaning the war of people’s public opinion – in order to rapidly destroy your adversary.

But with Hamas locating themselves alongside important places like hospitals, Hamas has actually made Israel fight them in places Israel wouldn’t want to target them, because of the potential loss of civilian life. And in doing so, look at how fast Israel lost momentum in its information war. Israel is taking a huge amount of criticism for its killing of civilians as it goes after Hamas.

Despite what some protesters are saying, I can say that the Israeli military does care about civilian casualties. Israel still is a democracy. And they respect, even if not to the exact standards that many people would like to see, the laws of war – certainly more than Hamas does. For example, Israel limits how it targets military strikes.

And even with that, the information blowback against Israel is real. I fought for 20 years. It’s hard to get images of infants killed and hurt in this war out of your head. Social media accelerates the circulation of images that pull on our emotions and make it difficult to have objective conversations about the conflict.

Benjamin Jensen is Professor of Strategic Studies, Marine Corps University; Scholar-in-Residence, American University School of International Service

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Amid rising tensions over Taiwan, a looming nuclear arms race and tit-for-tat espionage allegations, the US and China have agreed to crucial talks on the future use of artificial intelligence (AI) in sensitive military areas.

US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed the need for bilateral government talks to address the risks associated with using advanced AI systems in sensitive military functions at this week’s Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in San Francisco. But it was not clear from post-meeting statements that the two sides are anywhere near making a joint declaration.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported citing anonymous sources that Biden and Xi were set to pledge a ban on using AI in nuclear weapons command and control (C2) and autonomous weapons such as drones. The report said that the US and China are concerned about the potential for unregulated AI to fuel and escalate conflicts.

Oriana Skylar Mastro, a fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, said in the SCMP report that one of the first agreements the two sides should strike is to avoid automating nuclear C2 systems with AI.

Mastro pointed out that humans currently handle decision-making and launch procedures, although she said there are discussions underway about having AI automate parts of these processes. She was doubtful, however, that Biden and Xi would agree to AI-related nuclear arms control talks.

Breaking Defense reported that while the specifics of Biden and Xi’s AI-military talks were not publicly disclosed, with both sides releasing bare-bones press releases, there is a clear movement towards establishing norms on the military use of AI, particularly in autonomous weapons.

However, Breaking Defense said that neither side is likely to accept any ban limiting their freedom of action to deploy AI in their militaries.

Breaking Defense points out that US law prevents the President from making such a commitment without the approval of Congress and that China is seeking an expanded dialogue on AI rather than an agreement.

The same report says that while the US has been steadily building momentum to shape global AI norms, more than guidelines and political declarations are needed. Breaking Defense argues that the US should support clear and strong legal instruments that restrict the use of AI in autonomous weapons systems.

It also notes that China is thus far not following the US’s lead. Instead, Breaking Defense argues that China’s diplomatic strategy aims to counterbalance and rival the US in setting future AI standards, particularly in the military sphere.

While AI is a revolutionary technology, it also brings vulnerabilities. In a January 2022 Modern War Institute article, Nick Starck and other writers mention risks such as poisoning, evasion, reverse engineering and inference attacks.

Starck and other writers note that AI poisoning can occur due to adversaries altering training data, which can be countered by implementing rigorous data curation and governance policies.

They say that adversaries can use evasion techniques such as changing inputs to exploit the AI’s learned patterns, which can be prevented by evaluation tools and keeping humans in the loop.

They mention that adversaries can reverse-engineer AI by extracting its learned patterns, enabling them to predict or avoid responses, which can be stopped by strict accountability and access limitations.

In addition, Stark and others say that adversaries aim to deduce the data used for AI training in an inference attack, with that risk manageable by policy decisions regarding sensitive data.

Apart from those risks, the US may face a technological disadvantage with China as a near-peer competitor and a pacing challenge in AI technology.

The September 2022 Mid-Decade Challenges to National Competitiveness report by the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) notes that the US has lost its edge in technology manufacturing, as much of high-end chip manufacturing is done in East Asia close to China. It says the US is now reliant on supply chains that are vulnerable to control by China.

The report also says that the US tech ecosystem overlooked geopolitical rivalries and the impact of tech advancements, leading to decreased US manufacturing capabilities. Consequently, the report says the US has strategic vulnerabilities due to a declining technology manufacturing base and a lack of proactive movements in technologies like AI.

In terms of policymaking, the report mentions that the US has been typically reactive instead of proactive in response to technological advancements, leading to strategic disadvantages. Those have been seen in America’s struggles to rebuild its microelectronics industry and prevent Chinese dominance in global 5G infrastructure.

It also points out that commercial priorities drive the US tech agenda due to the absence of a national effort equivalent to a modern “moonshot” and a decline in government-funded research and development (R&D) programs.

China takes a similar view regarding the military advantages and risks of AI. In an August 2020 Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) report, Ryan Fedasiuk mentions that Chinese experts believe AI will enhance military capabilities through machine learning in tracking forces, lowering deployment costs and improving detection, targeting, and strikes against military targets.

At the same time, Fedasiuk claims that Chinese experts are worried that AI advancements in the military sphere could threaten strategic stability and reduce China’s defensive capabilities vis-a-vis the US.

He mentions Chinese experts’ tendency to overestimate the US military’s AI capabilities, leading to a push for increased investment in AI in China, akin to an arms race.

He mentions significant challenges to China’s AI development such as insufficient data collection, a lack of technical expertise and availability of advanced computing resources, and concerns about the leak and spread of its own AI advancements to the US.

Continue Reading

Myint Swe, the acting president of Myanmar’s military government, has warned that the country “will be split into various parts” after his armed forces suffered huge territorial losses to resistance fighters recently. His response was to call on Myanmar’s people to support his military forces, a call that is likely, based on previous experience, to fall mainly on deaf ears.

Far from sharing the military government’s fears of shrinking territorial control, it’s likely that most among Myanmar’s 55 million people will celebrate the army’s territorial losses. Junta misreads like this are not new – after they seized power in February 2021, the coup leaders indicated surprise when the coup met with widespread outrage and sustained public protest and resistance.

To quell opposition, military bosses have adopted a strategy of arbitrary arrest and extreme violence. The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners estimates 19,675 people are currently jailed – a figure that increases almost daily. Peaceful protests are met with army snipers and shoot-to-kill orders.

Myanmar’s military routinely responds to armed resistance by collectively punishing nearby civilian populations. This has included devastating airstrikes on civilian targets and scorched-earth “clearance operation” campaigns that have killed thousands of people and displaced more than 700,000 more. Rather than cowing the populace, junta violence continues to spur nationwide resistance.

Since September 2021, the National Unity Government (NUG), a shadow government in exile, has authorized a “defensive war” against the state military, pushing for the creation of militias targeting the junta and its economic base. NUG militias have increasingly coordinated with Myanmar’s dozens of ethnic armed groups, many of which have already been fighting the Tatmadaw (the junta’s military) for decades.

Now, every time government troops leave their barracks they face potential attack, causing them to increasingly lean on air power, but further limiting their ability to maintain effective control on the ground. Economic and territorial losses have steadily accumulated.

This is important because the Tatmadaw’s legitimacy depends on its ability to hold the country together. The controversial 2008 military-drafted constitution refers to “non-disintegration” of Myanmar a dozen times, including as a duty of the defense forces. This was a key justification for the 1962 military coup that ushered in five decades of military rule.

During the immediate post-independence period (1948-1962), Myanmar’s civilian government struggled to maintain territorial control, at times controlling little more than major urban centers. The situation is similar now, except that today it is the Tatmadaw that is unable to maintain control beyond urban centers and military barracks. This will hit junta morale badly and inspire further resistance.

The junta’s recent reversal in Shan State, its most significant territorial loss, came at the hands of three ethnic-based armed groups, the Arakan Army, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, and the Ta’ang National Liberation Army. These three groups now coordinate their activities as the Brotherhood Alliance.

They inflicted heavy losses on junta forces in early November, overrunning dozens of military posts and killing the commander of the 99th Light Infantry Division, a unit known internationally for its genocidal campaign against the Rohingya community.

The Brotherhood Alliance also captured the main overland route from Mandalay to China, a key economic corridor.

China’s role

Brotherhood Alliance members are themselves territorially ambitious but rely on China for arms so it is unlikely an operation in China’s hinterland could have occurred without China’s acquiescence.

Allowing this operation to go ahead is a strong statement by a Chinese government frustrated with the junta’s inaction on online scam centers in Shan state where thousands of trafficked Chinese and other foreigners have been forced to work in slave-like conditions.

China’s strategic ambiguity is unsurprising. China was far from enthusiastic about the 2021 coup. China’s ambassador to Myanmar, Chen Hai, told journalists at the time a coup was, “absolutely not what China wants to see.”

While traditionally a key international ally of the junta, China’s leadership had a very close relationship with Myanmar’s ousted de facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, and maintains close ties with many of Myanmar’s ethnic armed groups.

Now, strategic reversals, nationwide territorial losses and economic decline mean momentum has strongly shifted away from Myanmar’s junta. China’s leadership may have read the situation better than most, recognizing the junta may now be in a death spiral.

Others have been less shrewd. Russia has displaced China as the junta’s biggest arms supplier, accounting for US$406 million of Myanmar’s arms imports since the coup and crucially providing aviation fuel in exchange for funds, access to Bay of Bengal port facilities, and regional relevance.

Coup leader Min Aung Hlaing recently welcomed Russia’s navy for joint maneuvers, describing Vladimir Putin in glowing terms as a “leader of the world who is creating stability on the international arena.”

For Putin, this may soon be embarrassingly unwelcome praise. By linking itself so closely with a declining junta, Russia guarantees its Myanmar influence and regional relevance will not outlast military rule.

Post-junta planning

The NUG idealizes a post-junta Myanmar unified under its leadership with Suu Kyi returned to power. But for many ethnic armed groups – who will feel they, rather than the NUG, inflicted the strongest blows on the junta and now control significant territory – that is not likely their preferred outcome.

They will seek guarantees about key demands around federalism and minority rights that were not satisfactorily addressed when Suu Kyi was last in power.

The junta appears on a clear path to defeat, but this will not be immediate. Meanwhile, the state’s military forces commonly respond to reversals with shocking violence, so bringing junta rule to a speedy end must be prioritized.

Myanmar’s population and neighboring states will also not want the country, post-junta, to descend into the same sort of fractured instability as in the immediate post-independence period.

Myanmar’s neighbors, ASEAN, and Western powers who have talked tough on human rights in Myanmar, including the US, UK and EU, must now take steps to ensure the post-junta future plays out peacefully with all resistance groups included in decisions about Myanmar’s future.

The transitional period after the removal of the military will require a commitment from international actors to ensure the stability of the country, perhaps like the Cambodian UNTAC process in the 1990s.

Rather than being again caught on the hop by events in Myanmar, ASEAN and the UN should begin preparations to manage the transition to a post-junta Myanmar that now appears increasingly likely.

Ronan Lee is Vice-Chancellor Independent Research Fellow, Institute for Media and Creative Industries, Loughborough University London, Loughborough University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading