And this is why AI detector software is probably impossible.
What exactly is "this"?
Just about everything we make computers do is something we’re also capable of; slower, yes, and probably less accurately or with some other downside, but we can do it. We at least know how.
There are things computers can do better than humans, like memorizing, or precision (also both combined). For all the rest, while I agree in theory we could be on par, in practice it matters a lot that things happen in reality. There often is only a finite window to analyze and react and if you're slower, it's as good as if you knew nothing. Being good / being able to do something often means doing it in time.
We can’t program software or train neutral networks to do something that we have no idea how to do.
Machine learning does that. We don't know how all these layers and neurons work, we could not build the network from scratch. We cannot engineer/build/create the correct weights, but we can approach them in training.
Also look at Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). The adversarial part is literally to train a network to detect bad AI generated output, and tweak the generative part based on that error to produce better output, rinse and repeat. Note this by definition includes a (specific) AI detector software, it requires it to work.
Right? A self-assessed skill which is never tested is a funny thing anyways. It boils down to "I believe I'm good at it because I believe my belief is correct". Which in itself is shady, but then there are also incentives that people rather believe to be good, and those who don't probably rather don't speak up that much. Personally, I believe people lack the competence to make statements like these with any significant meaning.
Is the border crossing with Egypt open? Will Egypt let them in?
Honestly, what's up with Egypt? Just reading comments one could get the impression Gaza was entirely encircled by Israel. But Egypt is mostly Muslim, too? And shares a 12km border with Gaza.
Settlers moving into occupied territories blur the line. They are neither fully civilian, nor clearly military. Something in between. They fulfill a strategic role, following and protected by armed forces. They also fulfill a strategic role for the negotiation table. And I guess they all know they run a greater risk, if alone for being closer to the frontlines.
While a great argument at first, it struggles when you consider strategic settling. Russia did so in Crimea and Donbas, Israel does too.
If "land belongs to people who live there" was the decisive law, that would be a strong incentive for genocide and settlers, which we rather want to prevent.
Because of that, I feel the acquisition must not be ignored.
Hamas benefits from having a conflict, and atrocities make conflicts harder to resolve. People will die, mothers will cry, Hamas will be there to offer revenge. It makes more sense when you stop trying to see them fighting for their people and more like a power parasite.
The term has become pretty loose with climate activists being called terrorists and whatnot. Anyways, for me the defining characteristic of terror is:
The goal to strike fear in the civilian population. The goal is not to achieve military advantages like securing areas or destroying strategic assets.
As such, small units can be non terrorists (guerilla warfare), while nations can engage in terror (Russia prioritizing civilian targets over military).
Always bad when a definition depends on intent though, especially in controversial topics.
When was the last time so many people died in a day? Or so many attackers crossed the border? Launched 5000 missiles? Kidnapped so many? These are all rather uncommon events; hence 'unprecedented'.
Good point, maybe that's all there is to it, and I'm reading too much into it. I stumbled over sentences like this one:
“Over the coming days the Department of Defense will work to ensure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself and protect civilians [...]”
That seems to imply Israel currently, without benevolent help, does not have what it needs, and cannot protect it's own civilians. The wording can be seen as a way to stylize Israel as a dependent weakling. Also note they talk about a proactive, unilateral action. US takes steps to ensure that Israel can defend itself. That's quite different from coming to help, or offering assistance.
There are other ways to react and phrase things. They could firmly reassure their ally of their unconditional support by offering it, whenever Israel wants to request it. Maybe even prepare steps but emphasize it's Israel's call. While expressing confidence Israel is well equipped to deal with the situation.
But maybe the servant role does not sell so well to the domestic audience. Again, I don't know. I just found this odd.
There is insurmountable evidence that when the majority is Muslim, life gets worse for everyone, women’s rights are stripped away, and freedom of thought and religion is gone.
Quite similar to how if Scientology became mainstream we would all be worse off.
The last sentence hints both might have a common cause whis is not "being Muslim". I think it might be "being extremist". The opposite would be a pluralist society, which embraces diversity and encourages respectful coexistence and exchange.
This then also includes the rise of right-wing populists in democracies all over the world, with exactly the same consequences as you said.
There's another way to spin the analogy, and I believe that's closer to what Zelensky had in mind.
Both Russia and Hamas target civilian buildings with rockets. Both recently advanced in a military invasion into the sovereign territory of Ukraine / Israel. Both kidnapped and murdered citizencs. So the analogy is Russia / Hamas vs Ukraine / Israel.
I think it's a bit weird Zelensky would ally with a country which behaves like Russia from his point of view. I agree he probably might still do it, since he needs the weapons. But given this incentive, I think the alternative analogy becomes far more appealing and convincing.
I genuinely share this view, while also having doubts about it. There's still much I need to (re-)learn about this conflict, but I think both religions coexisted peacefully in that area for centuries. The current conflict might have much to do with colonialism-like European nations drawing borders in other countries, assigning people to lands, without fully considering who they are and what they want.
As with other AI-enhanced jobs, that probably still means less jobs in the long run.
Now one artist can make more art in the same time, or produce different styles which previously had required different artists.