Israel's Lavender: What could go wrong when AI is used in military operations?
April 10, 2024
VIDEOSGZERO World with Ian BremmerQuick TakePUPPET REGIMEIan ExplainsGZERO ReportsAsk IanGlobal Stage
Site Navigation
Search
Human content,
AI powered search.
Latest Stories
Sign up for GZERO Daily.
Get our latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Puppet Regime is up for a Webby Award!
VOTE HERE
GZERO AI Video
GZERO AI is our weekly video series intended to help you keep up and make sense of the latest news on the AI revolution.
Presented by
In this episode of GZERO AI, Taylor Owen, professor at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University and director of its Centre for Media, Technology & Democracy, examines the Israeli Defence Forces' use of an AI system called Lavender to target Hamas operatives. While it reportedly shares hallucination issues familiar with AI systems like ChatGPT, the cost of errors on the battlefront is incomparably severe.
So last week, six Israeli intelligence officials spoke to an investigative reporter for a magazine called +972 about what might be the most dangerous weapon in the war in Gaza right now, an AI system called Lavender.
As I discussed in an earlier video, the Israeli Army has been using AI in their military operations for some time now. This isn't the first time the IDF has used AI to identify targets, but historically, these targets had to be vetted by human intelligence officers. But according to the sources in this story, after the Hamas attack of October 7th, the guardrails were taken off, and the Army gave its officers sweeping approval to bomb targets identified by the AI system.
I should say that the IDF denies this. In a statement to the Guardian, they said that, "Lavender is simply a database whose purpose is to cross-reference intelligence sources." If true, however, it means we've crossed a dangerous Rubicon in the way these systems are being used in warfare. Let me just frame these comments with the recognition that these debates are ultimately about systems that take people's lives. This makes the debate about whether we use them, or how we use them, or how we regulate them and oversee them, both immensely difficult, but also urgent.
In a sense, these systems and the promises that they're based on are not new. Technologies like Palantir have long promised clairvoyance from more and more data. At their core, these systems all work in the same way, users upload raw data into them, in this case, the Israeli army loaded in data on known Hamas operatives, location data, social media profiles, cell phone information, and then these data are used to create profiles of other potential militants.
But of course, these systems are only as good as the training data that they are based on. One source who worked with the team that trained Lavender said that, "Some of the data they used came from the Hamas-run Internal Security Ministry, who aren't considered militants." The source said that, "Even if you believe these people are legitimate targets, by using their profiles to train the AI system, it means the system is more likely to target civilians." And this does appear to be what's happening. The sources say that, "Lavender is 90% accurate," but this raises profound questions about how accurate we expect and demand these systems to be. Like any other AI system, Lavender is clearly imperfect, but context matters. If ChatGPT hallucinates 10% of the time, maybe we're okay with that. But if an AI system is targeting innocent civilians for assassination 10% of the time, most people would likely consider that an unacceptable level of harm.
With the rise of AI systems in the workplace, it seems like an inevitability that militaries around the world will begin to adopt technologies like Lavender. Countries around the world, including the US, have set aside billions for AI-related military spending, which means we need to update our international laws for the AI age as urgently as possible. We need to know how accurate these systems are, what data they're being trained on, how their algorithms are identifying targets, and we need to oversee the use of these systems. It's not hyperbolic to say that new laws in this space will literally be the difference between life and death.
I'm Taylor Owen, and thanks for watching.
Keep reading...Show less
More from GZERO AI Video
Europe’s AI deepfake raid
March 04, 2025
AI's existential risks: Why Yoshua Bengio is warning the world
October 01, 2024
How is AI shaping culture in the art world?
July 02, 2024
How AI models are grabbing the world's data
June 18, 2024
Can AI help doctors act more human?
June 04, 2024
How neurotech could enhance our brains using AI
May 21, 2024
OpenAI is risk-testing Voice Engine, but the risks are clear
April 03, 2024
Should we regulate generative AI with open or closed models?
March 20, 2024
AI and Canada's proposed Online Harms Act
March 05, 2024
Gemini AI controversy highlights AI racial bias challenge
February 29, 2024
When AI makes mistakes, who can be held responsible?
February 20, 2024
AI & human rights: Bridging a huge divide
February 16, 2024
Taylor Swift AI images & the rise of the deepfakes problem
February 06, 2024
Will Taylor Swift's AI deepfake problems prompt Congress to act?
February 01, 2024
ChatGPT on campus: How are universities handling generative AI?
January 23, 2024
Davos 2024: AI is having a moment at the World Economic Forum
January 16, 2024
AI in 2024: Will democracy be disrupted?
December 20, 2023
New AI toys spark privacy concerns for kids
December 12, 2023
GZERO Series
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer
Puppet Regime
Quick Take
ask ian
Ian Explains
GZERO Reports
GZERO Europe
The Debrief
© 2026 GZERO Media. All Rights Reserved | A Eurasia Group company.
GZERO Daily: our free newsletter about global politics
Keep up with what’s going on around the world - and why it matters.