Israel v Hamas

[ASCPFC]

Why?

Remember, I was answering the comment by Cryst that ALL (his word) Muslims want all Jews killed and wiped off the face of the earth.

If ALL 2.17 billion Muslims wanted this, they would have done it. They have untold wealth and vast military power on a national level, and sheer numbers and religious fervor on an individual level. Who could have stopped them?

I think you may want to look at the numbers involved in the wars against Israel. Heavily outnumbered just meant more of the enemy were killed.
Haven't most of the Muslim countries already cleared their Jewry? And then onto the next religion.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Why?

Remember, I was answering the comment by Cryst that ALL (his word) Muslims want all Jews killed and wiped off the face of the earth.

If ALL 2.17 billion Muslims wanted this, they would have done it. They have untold wealth and vast military power on a national level, and sheer numbers and religious fervor on an individual level. Who could have stopped them?

People with bigger guns. The US has an arsenal that could wipe out the planet many times.

Do be serious.

 

[cryrst]

Why?

Remember, I was answering the comment by Cryst that ALL (his word) Muslims want all Jews killed and wiped off the face of the earth.

If ALL 2.17 billion Muslims wanted this, they would have done it. They have untold wealth and vast military power on a national level, and sheer numbers and religious fervor on an individual level. Who could have stopped them?

They do. Ask a Muslim if he ever cried over the death of a Jew !

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I’m doing a wissie here. I never said you were stupid. I said you post stupid sometimes. I also have never used any AI to sanction or justify what I post. I read and see. Being a humble person I also know some of my posts are incorrect and with you being captain hindsight you wouldn’t know what that’s like clearly !!!

You might like to try! It could verify your opinions. I suspect that those here who dislike it only do so because it often doesn’t agree with them. That’s, of course, for the very good reason that their opinions are outliers

 

[Teddy Eagle]

You might like to try! It could verify your opinions. I suspect that those here who dislike it only do so because it often doesn’t agree with them. That’s, of course, for the very good reason that their opinions are outliers

Ask AI how accurate it is. According to the BBC the answer is not very.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

One has to suspect that AI will be manipulated to present a particular political slant. Everything else is.

Just another form of influence.

Getting your defence in early?

Blame AI being manipulated when it submits facts that disprove your conspiracy theories and outrageous assertions?

Maybe one day it might just occur to you that you are wrong.

 

[cryrst]

You might like to try! It could verify your opinions. I suspect that those here who dislike it only do so because it often doesn’t agree with them. That’s, of course, for the very good reason that their opinions are outliers

I can’t dislike something I haven’t tried. What’s your point in that remark ?
I haven’t tried being a woman and neither have you but you seem to think it’s ok without trying it yourself !

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Ask AI how accurate it is. According to the BBC then answer is not very.

So I did. They all gave the same kind of answer, which actually is pretty obvious given what they are. No opinion is “accurate”. Only facts are. The real question is whether their opinion is more deeply researched and balanced? Especially when compared with any opinion originating on the political fringes. This is what Grok returned, used because of its tendency to be sympathetic to right wing opinion:-

“The accuracy of AI, including models like me, depends on several factors: the quality and quantity of training data, the design of the model, the task at hand, and the context in which it’s used. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Training Data: AI models are only as good as the data they’re trained on. If the data is comprehensive, diverse, and high-quality, the AI is more likely to provide accurate outputs. For example, my knowledge is continuously updated, which helps me stay relevant, but gaps or biases in data can lead to errors or skewed perspectives.

2. Task Specificity: AI accuracy varies by task. For factual queries (e.g., math or historical dates), AI can be highly accurate if the information is clear and well-documented. For complex or subjective questions (e.g., predicting future events or interpreting nuanced social issues), accuracy drops because these involve uncertainty or human judgment.


3. Model Limitations: No AI is perfect. Models can misinterpret ambiguous questions, lack real-time data for breaking events, or struggle with highly specialized knowledge. For instance, I can analyze X posts or web content for real-time insights, but if the sources are incomplete or biased, my response might reflect those limitations.

4. Benchmarks and Studies: Studies on AI accuracy (e.g., evaluations of language models like GPT or LLaMA) show they can achieve over 90% accuracy on specific tasks like question-answering or translation, but performance drops on open-ended or controversial topics. For example, a 2023 study on large language models found they were 85-95% accurate on factual recall but only 60-70% reliable for nuanced reasoning tasks.

15. Practical Example: If you ask me for the boiling point of water (100°C at standard pressure), I’m almost certainly accurate. If you ask about public sentiment on X about a breaking news event, I can provide a snapshot based on posts, but it might not capture the full spectrum of opinions.”

60-70% accuracy for nuanced reasoning tasks would be beyond the most optimistic expectations of many posters here!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

So I did. They all gave the same kind of answer, which actually is pretty obvious given what they are. No opinion is “accurate”. Only facts are. The real question is whether their opinion is more deeply researched and balanced? Especially when compared with any opinion originating on the political fringes. This is what Grok returned, used because of its tendency to be sympathetic to right wing opinion:-

“The accuracy of AI, including models like me, depends on several factors: the quality and quantity of training data, the design of the model, the task at hand, and the context in which it’s used. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Training Data: AI models are only as good as the data they’re trained on. If the data is comprehensive, diverse, and high-quality, the AI is more likely to provide accurate outputs. For example, my knowledge is continuously updated, which helps me stay relevant, but gaps or biases in data can lead to errors or skewed perspectives.

2. Task Specificity: AI accuracy varies by task. For factual queries (e.g., math or historical dates), AI can be highly accurate if the information is clear and well-documented. For complex or subjective questions (e.g., predicting future events or interpreting nuanced social issues), accuracy drops because these involve uncertainty or human judgment.


3. Model Limitations: No AI is perfect. Models can misinterpret ambiguous questions, lack real-time data for breaking events, or struggle with highly specialized knowledge. For instance, I can analyze X posts or web content for real-time insights, but if the sources are incomplete or biased, my response might reflect those limitations.

4. Benchmarks and Studies: Studies on AI accuracy (e.g., evaluations of language models like GPT or LLaMA) show they can achieve over 90% accuracy on specific tasks like question-answering or translation, but performance drops on open-ended or controversial topics. For example, a 2023 study on large language models found they were 85-95% accurate on factual recall but only 60-70% reliable for nuanced reasoning tasks.

15. Practical Example: If you ask me for the boiling point of water (100°C at standard pressure), I’m almost certainly accurate. If you ask about public sentiment on X about a breaking news event, I can provide a snapshot based on posts, but it might not capture the full spectrum of opinions.”

60-70% accuracy for nuanced reasoning tasks would be beyond the most optimistic expectations of many posters here!

The BBC quotes a report claiming AI misrepresents news stories 45% of the time. In any case it's not particularly accurate on anything other than verifiable facts which it's just repeating.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Ask AI how accurate it is. According to the BBC the answer is not very.

AI relies on libraries of information from which it extrapolates answers.

Those sources of information were created by humans.

Halfwits like Wisbech don’t realise that it makes AI just as vulnerable to manipulation or error as any other source of information.

Is the Wisbech bot a perfect example itself?

 

[Badger11]

AI relies on libraries of information from which it extrapolates answers.

Those sources of information were created by humans.

Halfwits like Wisbech don’t realise that it makes AI just as vulnerable to manipulation or error as any other source of information.

Is the Wisbech bot a perfect example itself?

Of course that is the problem. If you manually trawl the internet for news stories you will see everything from well balanced nuanced to plain loony. An individual makes a judgement call that maybe The Guardian is a better source than Mymumsbasement.com

The general AI that people use like Copilot or ChatGPT are just too broad based to be accurate for controversial news stuff but work better with the less political e.g. name the film that won most Oscars.

Where AI is really making a difference is when it is silo'd so it is only looking at a specific dataset that most people accept is accurate. For example an AI that just looks at UK law or UK tax.

 

[georgenorman]

So I did. They all gave the same kind of answer, which actually is pretty obvious given what they are. No opinion is “accurate”. Only facts are. The real question is whether their opinion is more deeply researched and balanced? Especially when compared with any opinion originating on the political fringes. This is what Grok returned, used because of its tendency to be sympathetic to right wing opinion:-

“The accuracy of AI, including models like me, depends on several factors: the quality and quantity of training data, the design of the model, the task at hand, and the context in which it’s used. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Training Data: AI models are only as good as the data they’re trained on. If the data is comprehensive, diverse, and high-quality, the AI is more likely to provide accurate outputs. For example, my knowledge is continuously updated, which helps me stay relevant, but gaps or biases in data can lead to errors or skewed perspectives.

2. Task Specificity: AI accuracy varies by task. For factual queries (e.g., math or historical dates), AI can be highly accurate if the information is clear and well-documented. For complex or subjective questions (e.g., predicting future events or interpreting nuanced social issues), accuracy drops because these involve uncertainty or human judgment.


3. Model Limitations: No AI is perfect. Models can misinterpret ambiguous questions, lack real-time data for breaking events, or struggle with highly specialized knowledge. For instance, I can analyze X posts or web content for real-time insights, but if the sources are incomplete or biased, my response might reflect those limitations.

4. Benchmarks and Studies: Studies on AI accuracy (e.g., evaluations of language models like GPT or LLaMA) show they can achieve over 90% accuracy on specific tasks like question-answering or translation, but performance drops on open-ended or controversial topics. For example, a 2023 study on large language models found they were 85-95% accurate on factual recall but only 60-70% reliable for nuanced reasoning tasks.

15. Practical Example: If you ask me for the boiling point of water (100°C at standard pressure), I’m almost certainly accurate. If you ask about public sentiment on X about a breaking news event, I can provide a snapshot based on posts, but it might not capture the full spectrum of opinions.”

60-70% accuracy for nuanced reasoning tasks would be beyond the most optimistic expectations of many posters here!

I asked it whether Wisbech Eagle on the Holmesdale Politics forum is a contrarian - it said: "Yes, Wisbech Eagle can reasonably be described as a contrarian in the context of the Holmesdale News & Politics forum."

 

[silvertop]

People with bigger guns. The US has an arsenal that could wipe out the planet many times.

Do be serious.

That's protecting Israel. What about the 22 million diaspora? How do you think the US arsenal will protect them?

And you are also deviating. By way of further repetition, the point I was responding to was that ALL 2.17 billion Muslims want to kill ALL 28 million Jews. It is a ridiculous statement. It is not part of Islam (the Ten Commandments) and is undoubtedly far from the thought of the vast majority of Muslims, many of whom exist cheek by jowl with jews.

Talk about Islamophobia.

Edit. Just seen Cryst's response. He genuinely believes that all Muslims want to see all Jews killed. Not a comment meriting a direct reply.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

That's protecting Israel. What about the 22 million diaspora? How do you think the US arsenal will protect them?

And you are also deviating. By way of further repetition, the point I was responding to was that ALL 2.17 billion Muslims want to kill ALL 28 million Jews. It is a ridiculous statement. It is not part of Islam (the Ten Commandments) and is undoubtedly far from the thought of the vast majority of Muslims, many of whom exist cheek by jowl with jews.

Talk about Islamophobia.

You are talking in irrelevancies.

All Muslims don't decide to kill Jews, but all Germans didn't decide to invade Poland.
They also didn't stop or object to those who did, out of loyalty or fear.

The 22 million diaspora are at some risk while their chosen countries keep importing radical Muslims, but the law enforcement protects them from mass murder.

Islamophobia is a made up word. Islam is a religion. No one is afraid of it, but they might object to its teachings.
What they actually might be afraid of are violent religious zealot loons with knives and machine guns and gangs of rapists who pick on vulnerable White girls.

Now, do stop talking diversionary bollocks.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

That's protecting Israel. What about the 22 million diaspora? How do you think the US arsenal will protect them?

And you are also deviating. By way of further repetition, the point I was responding to was that ALL 2.17 billion Muslims want to kill ALL 28 million Jews. It is a ridiculous statement. It is not part of Islam (the Ten Commandments) and is undoubtedly far from the thought of the vast majority of Muslims, many of whom exist cheek by jowl with jews.

Talk about Islamophobia.

Edit. Just seen Cryst's response. He genuinely believes that all Muslims want to see all Jews killed. Not a comment meriting a direct reply.

There’s a clear strategic reason why many pro-Israel advocates lean into Islamophobia; it’s far more effective in Western political discourse than trying to generate genuine sympathy for Israel’s actions. By portraying the issue as part of a broader “Islam vs. the West” struggle, they tap into existing cultural anxieties and redirect scrutiny away from Israel’s conduct.

It’s an old propaganda technique; shift the moral lens from “what are we doing?” to “which side are you on?”

You see it all the time on this thread.

 

[HKOwen]

There’s a clear strategic reason why many pro-Israel advocates lean into Islamophobia; it’s far more effective in Western political discourse than trying to generate genuine sympathy for Israel’s actions. By portraying the issue as part of a broader “Islam vs. the West” struggle, they tap into existing cultural anxieties and redirect scrutiny away from Israel’s conduct.

It’s an old propaganda technique; shift the moral lens from “what are we doing?” to “which side are you on?”

You see it all the time on this thread.

Hamas calling, Hamas calling

 

[steeleye20]

Whatever happens to Israel as a result of the genocide against the Palestine people is entirely their problem.

They have brought it all on themselves.

 

[cryrst]

Whatever happens to Israel as a result of the genocide against the Palestine people is entirely their problem.

They have brought it all on themselves.

Apart from the fact it wasn’t and isn’t !

 

[georgenorman]

Whatever happens to Israel as a result of the genocide against the Palestine people is entirely their problem.

They have brought it all on themselves.

Whatever happens to Hamas as a result of the genocide against the Israeli people is entirely their problem.

They have brought it all on themselves.

 

[georgenorman]

There’s a clear strategic reason why many pro-Israel advocates lean into Islamophobia; it’s far more effective in Western political discourse than trying to generate genuine sympathy for Israel’s actions. By portraying the issue as part of a broader “Islam vs. the West” struggle, they tap into existing cultural anxieties and redirect scrutiny away from Israel’s conduct.

It’s an old propaganda technique; shift the moral lens from “what are we doing?” to “which side are you on?”

You see it all the time on this thread.

Islamophobia? I'm not afraid of Islam, just think it is malevolent and needs to be opposed wherever it is.