I really abhor news coverage of important subjects where the writer doesn't understand the basics.
Would you say a heat-seeking missile "picks" its target? Would you say a keeled boat "decides" to right itself?
“It’s all autonomous. It picked its target.”
Funny thing about anthropomorphizing silicon is you get statements like that. Or this:
“Long-range drones have the germs of artificial intelligence. They search for targets that are preprogrammed into the drones. That’s probably why it crashed into barrels at an oil terminal that are visually similar to targets on Russian territory,”
except that it'd be bluntly stupid to put targetting systems on pure visual recognition, because then every cylinder en route becomes a serious problem. The truth is in the article, but not emphasized or detailed:
after being knocked off course by Russian jamming
and suddenly there's no need to appeal to (non-existent!) hypercompetent optical targetting AI. The simplest and by far most probable explanation: the drones were sent false location signals. It's really that simple.
As for culpability: if a jet is carrying a heat seeking missile, and is shot down, the pilot ejects, and the missile explodes - whose fault is the damage?
If anyone needs eye witness accounts for today's "accident" at the #CriticalMass Berlin with car driver B-PK-xxxx, I can give record.
(That prick was locked by a bike driver and just suddenly said fuck it and accelerated, running them over. Only the bike got damaged luckily, but he immediately fled the scene.)