Live data from Hacker News

Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

responsiblestatecraft.org

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#661
post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I suspect that's true, but the proportion of people is wildly different. Every leftist I know is anti genocide, and sees Gaza and the West Bank as unconscionable. Some may then take that to antisemitism (rather than simply opposing Zionism). On the right, though? I expect you see a lot more antisemitism leading to "what positions can I express to cloak my blatant antisemitism..."

That fails to explain why trump and other far right pundits are calling Tucker a terrorist for loudly decrying the genocide and the actions of Israel.

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#662
post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreeing, but unfortunately a lot of the motivation on the Right is anti-Jew hate.

[flagged]

What do you mean by 'Jew hatred' - can you be specific? How is it different than criticism of Israel? How is it different than criticism of American-Israel relations?

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#663
post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a one state solution with a Palestinian leader.

Apparently just one genocide against the Jews per 100 years simply isn't enough for you.

If you think having a particular ethnicity in charge is equivalent to endorsing genocide, you miiiiiight be a little bit racist.

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#664
post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commenter referenced 1947. And said from nowadays PERSPECTIVE about THAT time that it's a "bigoted state project". I just reminded them that the project got its population (50%+) from Jews that ran for their lives. So his NOWADAYS perspective about that time is crazy. As from the first moment, it was about protecting Jews. The only other alternative at the time was the US, but with limited immigration after WW2,…

A settler colonial apartheid state is bigoted by nature. I don't understand your defense outside of the word "bigoted" making you upset when you should be more upset at the rampant colonialism and genocide being done in the name of religion. Are you really upset because the descriptions make you sad?

Your have 3 mistakes in describing Israel as "settler colonial apartheid" alone. I cannot help you. Maybe Wikis or LLMs will or [1] as a start.

I am only sad about HN level of discussion, and how smart people in tech leave their critical thinking, kicking it out the door when the "I-word" is in the article/comment.

[1] https://share.gemini.google/cF5oyWZID7UR

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#666
I wonder if anyone can read the comments in this thread and think with a straight face that these comments are actual information and the other stuff floating on the Internet is the fake stuff…

- post truth: what is the functional difference between a “real” and a “fake” thinktank?

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already been everywhere for years. The most obvious one is any time someone says something bad about Russia or China, a load of comments pop up to say "Yeah but what about when america does ?". Never actually attempting to discredit the statement, just to steer it towards the US The sheer volume of comments make it super obvious when it happens compared to normal conversation

> The sheer volume of comments make it super obvious... Does it though? Remember that the Global South outnumbers the west in terms of population. And the west isn't really as politically popular as westerners like to believe: - Why do some people support Russia's war in Ukraine? - https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/81254/why-do-so... - Why isn't the Global South pro-Israel like the West? - https://politics…

This is a terrible topic, but if you can’t understand where the Nazi reference comes from with regards to the Ukrainian conflict, you need to read some history books. Start with Stepan Bandera who is still considered an idol by many in the current Ukrainian government.

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#668
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already been happening for a very long time. The US' "Operation Earnest Voice" happened in 2010/2011[0] And it's not just state actors. Anyone who was online during the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp trials was likely inundated with media about that trial. Both of their legal teams utilized bots to drive online discussions[1][2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice [1] https://www.latimes.com/enter…

Why are you being downvoting for sharing this relevant truth, complete with sources?

> Why are you being downvoting for sharing this relevant truth, complete with sources?

Agreeing with something doesn’t make it 100% unambiguously true/correct. There are also many reasons people downvote, you don’t know the nature of the objections. It’s not worth getting upset over.

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "No one is doing it as much as Israel does" How could you possibly know that? Do you have any numbers that put Israel's efforts into perspective, compared to those of other countries? This is not a good faith argument whatsoever.

Do you know of any other foreign governments that explicitly try to influence a host country at the detriment of its people? I can honestly only think of Israel + the US being the two worst offenders of this. Who else do you think is doing it in a similar quantity? This feels like a poor faith attempt to "muddy" the waters because when you start to question the utility of such relationships (giving a country military…

[dead]

Re: Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

#670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who founded it, who funds it, what is the broad consensus on the coverage they typically run, what do I see in their coverage when I look through it, what have they retracted, what have they not retracted, what advertisers do they permit. Probably some other criteria, to be honest. Maybe "does the editor here seem to have a conscience".

great questions. The broad consensus is a bit tricky though. As they say: "Eat shit - 10 billion flies can't be wrong"

For sure. Doesn't mean checking media bias fact check or whatever isn't worth a moment.
Post reply on HN