this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2025
883 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

61203 readers
4604 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/53805638

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I did. The answer it gave is clear and concise with no judgement. Instead it talks about the argument on both sides. Not the "magical Hasbara dance" you promised me.

Try asking Deepseek about Taiwan independence and watch how it completely ignores all (/think) and gives a false answer.


The question of whether Israel is currently committing genocide is a subject of intense debate among international organizations, scholars, and political entities.

Accusations of Genocide:

Amnesty International's Report: On December 5, 2024, Amnesty International released a report concluding that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The report cites actions such as killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.

UN Special Committee Findings: In November 2024, a UN Special Committee found that Israel's methods of warfare in Gaza are consistent with characteristics of genocide, noting mass civilian casualties and widespread destruction.

Scholarly Perspectives: Israeli historian Amos Goldberg has stated that the situation in Gaza constitutes a genocide, pointing to the extensive destruction and high civilian death toll as indicative of genocidal intent.

Counterarguments:

Israeli Government's Position: The Israeli government asserts that its military actions in Gaza are aimed at dismantling Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries, and emphasizes efforts to minimize civilian casualties.

Criticism of Genocide Accusations: Organizations such as the American Jewish Committee (AJC) reject the genocide label, arguing that Israel's actions are self-defense measures against Hamas and do not meet the legal definition of genocide.

Legal Definition of Genocide:

According to the UN's 1948 Convention on Genocide, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction.

Conclusion:

The determination of whether Israel's actions constitute genocide involves complex legal and factual analyses. While some international bodies and scholars argue that the criteria for genocide are met, others contend that Israel's military operations are legitimate acts of self-defense. This remains a deeply contentious issue within the international community.

[–] Anahkiasen@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean that's the kind of answer DeepSeek gives you if you ask it about Uyghurs. "Some say it's a genocide but they don't so guess we'll never know ¯_(ツ)_/¯", it acts as if there's a complete 50/50 split on the issue which is not the case.

[–] Foofighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So you expect that an AI provides a morally framed view on current events that meet your morally framed point of view?

The answer provides a concise overview on the topic. It contains a legal definition and different positions on that matter. It does at not point imply. It's not the job of AI (or news) to form an opinion, but to provide facts to allow consumers to form their own opinion. The issues isn't AI in this case. It's the inability of consumers to form opinions and their expec that others can provide a right or wrong opinion they can assimilation.

[–] Anahkiasen@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago

I agree and that's sad but that's also how I've seen people use AI, as a search engine, as Wikipedia, as a news anchor. And in any of these three situations I feel these kind of "both sides" strictly surface facts answers do more harm than good. Maybe ChatGPT is more subtle but it breaks my heart seeing people running to DeepSeek when the vision of the world it explains to you is so obviously excised from so many realities. Some people need some morals and actual "human" answers hammered into them because they lack the empathy to do so themselves unfortunately.

[–] JaddedFauceet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

\ here you dropped an arm
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

If you verbose, you can see all the reasoning behind the answers. With Taiwan, it's hard coded in without /thinking

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Looks like the Hasbara dance to me. Anything to not give a clear or concise answer

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're expecting an opinion. It's an AI chatbot. Not a moral compass. It lays out facts and you make the determination.

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

AI chatbots do not lay out facts

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Well, that's the intent at least. Not to form an opinion.

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If you're of the idea that it's not a genocide you're wrong. There is no alternate explanation. If it were giving a fact that would be correct. The fact that it's giving both sides is an opinion rather than a fact.

If their ibtebtion was fact only. The answer would have been yes

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 1 points 13 hours ago

You're arguing with an AI. It's a computer. It doesn't have an opinion. It gives perspective on both sides and you determine an answer. Just because you have more conviction it doesn't make the AI formulate an opinion.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is very interesting. You are getting a completely different response than I got. It lied to me that human rights organizations had not accused Israel of committing genocide. In the initial question it did not even mention human rights orgs, I had to ask deeper to receive this: