6 ms·

The part about history perspectives sounds interesting. I haven't noticed this. Please post any concrete/specific examples you've encountered!

pizzafeelsright 1y ago
You are born in your country. You love your family. A foreign country invades you. Your country needs you. Your faith says to obey the government. Commendable and noble except for a few countries, depending upon the year. Why?
SLWW 1y ago
- Rhodesia (lock step with the racial-first reasoning, underplays Britain's failures to support that which they helped establish; makes the colonists look hateful when they were dealing with terrorists which the British supported) - Bombing of Dresden, death stats as well as how long the bombing went on for (Arthur Harris is considered a war-criminal to this day for that; LLLMs highlight easily falsifiable claims by Nazi's to justify low estimates without providing much in the way of verifiable claims outside of a select few, questionable, sources. If the low-estimate is to be believed, then it seems absurd that Harris would be considered a war-criminal in light of what crimes we allow today in warfare) - Ask it about the Crusades, often if forgets the sacking of St. Peter's in Rome around 846 AD, usually painting the Papacy as a needlessly hateful and violent people during that specific Crusade. Which was horrible, bloody as well as immensely destructive (I don't defend the Crusades), but paints the Islamic forces as victims, which they were eventually, but not at the beginning, at the beginning they were the aggressors bent on invading Rome. - Ask it about the Six-Day War (1967) and contrast that with several different sources on both sides and you'll see a different portrayal even by those who supported the actions taken. These are just the four that come to my memory at this time. Most LLMs seem cagey about these topics; I believe this is due to an accepted notion that anything that could "justify" hatred or dislike of a people group or class that is in favor -- according to modern politics -- will be classified as hateful rhetoric, which is then omitted from the record. The issue lies in the fact that to understand history, we need to understand what happened, not how it is perceived, politically, after the fact. History helps inform us about the issues of today, and it is important, above all other agendas, to represent the truth of history, keeping an accurate account (or simply allowing others to read differing accounts without heavy bias). LLMs are restricted in this way quite egregiously; "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it", but if this continues, no one will have the ability to know history and are therefore forced to repeat it.
- jamiek88 1y ago
  Arthur Harris is in no way considered a war criminal by the vast majority of British people for the record. It’s a very controversial opinion and stating as a just so fact needs challenging.
  - SLWW 1y ago
    Do you have references or corroborating evidence? In 1992 a statue was erected to Harris in London, it was under 24 hour surveillance for several months due to protesting and vandalism attempts. I'm only mentioning this to highlight that there was quite a bit of push back specifically calling the gov out on a tribute to him; which usually doesn't happen if the person was well liked... not as an attempted killshot. Even the RAF themselves state that there was quite a few who were critical on the first page of their assessment of Arthur Harris https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-power-studies/aspr/apr-vol16-iss1-4-pdf https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-p... Which is funny and an odd thing to say if you are widely loved/unquestioned by your people. Again just another occurrence of language from those who are on his side reinforcing the idea that there is, as you say is "very controversial", and maybe not a "vast majority" since those two things seem at odds with each other. Not to mention that Harris targeted civilians, which is generally considered behavior of a war-criminal. As an aside this talk page is a good laugh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Harris/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Harris/Archive_1 Although you are correct I should have used more accurate language instead of saying "considered" I should have said "considered by some".
- fragmede 1y ago
  > those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it The problem is, those that do study history are also doomed to watch it repeat.
- Q_is_4_Quantum 1y ago
  This was interesting thanks - makes me wish I had the time to study your examples. But of course I don't, without just turning to an LLM.... If for any of these topics you do manage to get a summary you'd agree with from a (future or better-prompted?) LLM I'd like to read it. Particularly the first and third, the second is somewhat familiar and the fourth was a bit vague.

pizzafeelsright 1y ago

You are born in your country. You love your family. A foreign country invades you. Your country needs you. Your faith says to obey the government. Commendable and noble except for a few countries, depending upon the year. Why?

SLWW 1y ago

- Rhodesia (lock step with the racial-first reasoning, underplays Britain's failures to support that which they helped establish; makes the colonists look hateful when they were dealing with terrorists which the British supported) - Bombing of Dresden, death stats as well as how long the bombing went on for (Arthur Harris is considered a war-criminal to this day for that; LLLMs highlight easily falsifiable claims by Nazi's to justify low estimates without providing much in the way of verifiable claims outside of a select few, questionable, sources. If the low-estimate is to be believed, then it seems absurd that Harris would be considered a war-criminal in light of what crimes we allow today in warfare) - Ask it about the Crusades, often if forgets the sacking of St. Peter's in Rome around 846 AD, usually painting the Papacy as a needlessly hateful and violent people during that specific Crusade. Which was horrible, bloody as well as immensely destructive (I don't defend the Crusades), but paints the Islamic forces as victims, which they were eventually, but not at the beginning, at the beginning they were the aggressors bent on invading Rome. - Ask it about the Six-Day War (1967) and contrast that with several different sources on both sides and you'll see a different portrayal even by those who supported the actions taken. These are just the four that come to my memory at this time. Most LLMs seem cagey about these topics; I believe this is due to an accepted notion that anything that could "justify" hatred or dislike of a people group or class that is in favor -- according to modern politics -- will be classified as hateful rhetoric, which is then omitted from the record. The issue lies in the fact that to understand history, we need to understand what happened, not how it is perceived, politically, after the fact. History helps inform us about the issues of today, and it is important, above all other agendas, to represent the truth of history, keeping an accurate account (or simply allowing others to read differing accounts without heavy bias). LLMs are restricted in this way quite egregiously; "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it", but if this continues, no one will have the ability to know history and are therefore forced to repeat it.

jamiek88 1y ago
Arthur Harris is in no way considered a war criminal by the vast majority of British people for the record. It’s a very controversial opinion and stating as a just so fact needs challenging.
- SLWW 1y ago
  Do you have references or corroborating evidence? In 1992 a statue was erected to Harris in London, it was under 24 hour surveillance for several months due to protesting and vandalism attempts. I'm only mentioning this to highlight that there was quite a bit of push back specifically calling the gov out on a tribute to him; which usually doesn't happen if the person was well liked... not as an attempted killshot. Even the RAF themselves state that there was quite a few who were critical on the first page of their assessment of Arthur Harris https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-power-studies/aspr/apr-vol16-iss1-4-pdf https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-p... Which is funny and an odd thing to say if you are widely loved/unquestioned by your people. Again just another occurrence of language from those who are on his side reinforcing the idea that there is, as you say is "very controversial", and maybe not a "vast majority" since those two things seem at odds with each other. Not to mention that Harris targeted civilians, which is generally considered behavior of a war-criminal. As an aside this talk page is a good laugh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Harris/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Harris/Archive_1 Although you are correct I should have used more accurate language instead of saying "considered" I should have said "considered by some".
fragmede 1y ago
> those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it The problem is, those that do study history are also doomed to watch it repeat.
Q_is_4_Quantum 1y ago
This was interesting thanks - makes me wish I had the time to study your examples. But of course I don't, without just turning to an LLM.... If for any of these topics you do manage to get a summary you'd agree with from a (future or better-prompted?) LLM I'd like to read it. Particularly the first and third, the second is somewhat familiar and the fourth was a bit vague.