Besides the fact that this is most probably state-sponsored disinformation intended to scuttle the peace talks, I don't see how providing Iran with defensive weapons (as the article details) would be "a provocative move". Aren't the US rearming as well in the same timeframe? Isn't Israel? And they're even the illegal attackers.
Israel bombed an apartment building in Beirut and killed a kid from a message board I posted on at the time. Haven't liked Israel since. I was young and didn't really have an opinion on Israel until then.
Killed isn't a strong enough word. I should have said, "2006 was when I learned that IDF indiscriminately murders humans who are just trying to live their lives, and many of those humans are children."
Yes, it's called MAD. It doesn't work for very large groups with many unstable individuals but seems to have worked so far for the small group of nations.
The US are also the major enabler of Israel's colonial expansion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. This was clearly expressed by Bin Laden himself as one of the motives behind the 9/11 attacks.
> Were you thinking the US was just minding its own business and some bad guys came and attacked it
As I remember, this was exactly the way the US explained 9/11: "they hate us for our freedom".
No, he didn't. His "letter to America" starts with the question:
"As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
Because you attacked us and continue to attack us."
And proceeds to list all the ways the US are militarily attacking and oppressing Muslims in the Middle East. It's a long list.
Homosexuality is mentioned only once in the letter, in the next section, where he criticises American society and morals in general and calls it to embrace Islam. This is explicitly an exhortation and not part of the reasons for the attacks (so probably intended as a diagnosis of the symptoms of a moral disease and the proposal of a cure - note that I'm not endorsing it, just explaining its function in the letter).
No, there is no "or else", you are plainly making it up. As I've said, this is the exhortation part of the letter and it's not listed among the reasons for the attacks. Regressive, certainly. Brought as a justification for terrorism, no.
You asked "who did the US bomb before 9/11" and you got the answer. Now you're arguing that they shouldn't have reacted even if the US bombed them before (calling it "an excuse")?
As for the peace process with Palestinians, it was always a sham. The US (as it's evident now to many) are entirely unable to apply any sort of pressure on their "ally". What they've done is just buying time for Israel to expand its colonisation under the temporary pretense of some ongoing "peace process".
"excuse" is a funny way of wording it -- "motivation" or "explanation" might be more appropriate here. is the expectation that the US can and should be able to kill and destroy and the victims just turn the other cheek?
West bank and Gaza were never under full Palestinian control since 1967 both were under brutal occupation or blockade + contant Israeli meddling into internal affairs.
That's exactly why we complain about the Rs in strawberry. We can get funny-stupid human interpretations all day long. What we can't get is cold facts, and isn't that what was promised by AI (at least, before ChatGPT was released in 2022)?
Unfortunately we fed this current iteration of AI with human behaviour (not only that: human behaviour on the Internet...)
> What we can't get is cold facts, and isn't that what was promised by AI (at least, before ChatGPT was released in 2022)?
Not that I know of. An entity dealing only in cold facts is not intelligent, it's a theorem prover- extremely narrow, rigid and incapable of interpretation and insight- basically of bridging the smallest gap of knowledge. That's exactly what intelligence isn't.
It doesn't imply "control" but, if all these people define themselves as "Jewish", then they have something in common that distinguishes them from the general population. And unless "being Jewish" (as "being Christian", or "being Palestinian", or "being Russian") is an empty word, then "being Jewish" must have some predictive value about their beliefs, behaviours and choices. It is perfectly normal to imagine that their "being Jewish" will affect their choices more when they concern things that feel close to their identity: their religion, their culture, their ethnic group, their communities, their associations, their lobbies, and finally their Jewish State. Being over-represented in positions of power certainly allows them to exercise their free choices in directions that benefit the group and community they feel they belong to. It's that simple.
Makes me wonder if during training LLMs are asked to tell whether they've written something themselves or not. Should be quite easy: ask the LLM to produce many continuations of a prompt, then mix them with many other produced by humans, and then ask the LLM to tell them apart. This should be possible by introspecting on the hidden layers and comparing with the provided continuation. I believe Anthropic has already demonstrated that the models have already partially developed this capability, but should be trivial and useful to train it.
Isn't that something different? If I prompt an LLM to identify the speaker, that's different from keeping track of speaker while processing a different prompt.
reply