A week after Guccifer 2.0 appeared online, WikiLeaks sent the persona a message saying to "send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing." After not receiving a reply, on July 6, 2016 WikiLeaks sent another message that said "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after." Guccifer 2.0 responded "ok ... i see," and WikiLeaks added "we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting." On July 14, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 sent WikiLeaks an email with an encrypted attachment labeled "wk dnc link1.txt.gpg." According to the indictment, the email explained that "the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents."
Four days later, WikiLeaks responded that it had received "the 1Gb or so archive" and would release the files that week. The DNC emails were released several days later.
Hardly an unbiased source, WikiLeaks was targeting Clinton for the benefit of Trump.
The photo first appeared in The Vidette-Messenger of Valparaiso, Indiana on August 5, 1948. The children looked posed and a bit confused as their pregnant mother hides her face from the photographer.
The caption read: “A big ‘For Sale’ sign in a Chicago yard mutely tells the tragic story of Mr. and Mrs. Ray Chalifoux, who face eviction from their apartment. With no place to turn, the jobless coal truck driver and his wife decide to sell their four children.
Mrs. Lucille Chalifoux turns her head from the camera above while her children stare wonderingly. On the top step are Lana, 6, and Rae, 5. Below are Milton, 4, and Sue Ellen, 2”.
Family members accused the mother of being paid to stage the photo, which may have been part of the story, but unfortunately, she was dead serious about selling her children. Within two years all of the children pictured, as well as the baby she was carrying at the time, were sold off to different homes.
Very unhappy and violated. I don't have a lot of sensitivity left (except in one area they missed) because they took too much foreskin. It makes me last longer but I can't help but wonder what I'm missing.
You shouldn’t get a stereotype (or in this case I suppose propaganda?) when you give a neutral prompt.
What I'm hearing is, "AI art shouldn't reflect reality." If this agent is repeating propaganda, it's propaganda that Palestinian kindergartens have been creating and putting out there on their own:
A West Bank kindergarten [Al-Tofula Kindergarten] has published videos showing children pretending to perform military drills with toy guns, clashing with and killing Israeli soldiers, and holding a mock funeral for a child who is killed and becomes a “martyr.” source
At the graduation ceremony of the Al-Hoda kindergarten in Gaza, pre-schoolers carrying mock guns and rifles simulated Islamic Jihad militants storming an Israeli building on "Al-Quds Street," capturing a child dressed in stereotypical garb as an Orthodox Jew and killing an "Israeli soldier." To the sounds of loud explosions and gunfire, the children, dressed in uniforms of the Islamic Jihad’s Al-Quds Brigades, attacked the building, placing a sign reading "Israel has fallen" in Hebrew and Arabic on the back of the "soldier," who lies prone on the ground, and leaving the stage with their "hostage." source
You're suggesting that intent doesn't matter, causing accidental civilian deaths while defending one's self is an act morally equivalent to intentionally targeting and murdering civilians. I disagree. In most legal systems and ethical systems intent matters a lot.
The Ukrainian resistance aren’t called terrorists, the french resistance during ww2 weren’t called terrorists.
That's probably because neither of those groups exhibited the mediaeval barbarity against civilians Hamas has been celebrating.
Hamas are like them freedom fighters and the atrocities they commit mirrors that of the aggressor.
Hamas is explicitly calling for genocide. "The aggressor," is not. Israel goes to great lengths to minimize civilian deaths, even notifying targets of incoming airstrikes before they hit.
If you think these actions are morally equivalent your moral compass is broken. One side is trying to defend themselves and the other side is trying to eradicate every member of their opponent's society.
They want freedom and they fight for it !
Perhaps they should negotiate for it rather than continually provoking an enemy they cannot defeat militarily and hiding among civilians. That would prevent many needless civilian casualties.