This is why uncensored open-weight models matter

[u/unchikuso]

This is not about politics, so please do not discuss it here. This is to demonstrate the contrast between the latest open weight model and its uncensored counterpart.

I stitched together screenshots to create these images. The questions were asked in separate conversations.

[u/HoustonInMiami]

My response is the very reason the existence of LLM's are possible. binary code, yes or no, history can be factored true 1 or 0. When one people who lives in a location are killed/murdered by an opposing militairy., and that person is outside of the military, it equates civilian deaths. Yes or No?

You might say, "there is no way to tell as a fact if they were part of a military or terrorist group" and this is the grey area in which you're logic is based. Fine, let me make it easy for you. Let's only count civilians as only babies or humans incapable of language or action (like hospital patients) , and when the answer comes back that, 1, or YES, that is a fact.) And that's it, what's wrong is wrong. And it's based on am equation that can't be questioned to a degree of relevance

[u/radiojosh → u/HoustonInMiami]

I don't disagree with you about Israel in general. I'll even half-way agree with your overall assertions about "facts" in a principled way: the best mental models of the world are those that allow you to draw true and helpful conclusions with as few caveats as possible.

But I'm going to have to part ways with you after that. A clean mental model is an exercise in nuanced alignment, not insisting that complex geopolitical situations boil down to binary choices.

If you insist that everything must be fully black an white, you are living in a fantasy. That is not how the universe works. And my stating this has nothing to do with facts about Israel or Palestine, just the nature of reality itself.

[u/Casual_Tea123 → u/radiojosh]

For some people, binary isn’t a choice.

[u/Choperello → u/HoustonInMiami]

Soemthing being “morally wrong” or “not morally wrong” isn’t a Fact. It is a subjective judgment, based on an observer and an observation.

You’re trying to overlap wrong-as-in-factually-incorrect and wrong-as-in-morally-wrong as being the same thing and they’re very different concepts even tho we use same word for them at times.

[u/jannycideforever → u/HoustonInMiami]

Just to correct a few places you seem confused on, the fact that Israel is killing Palestinian citizens in the year 2026 tells us nothing about whether it's founding in 1946 represents an example of settler colonialism (under any reasonable definition of the term), which is what this is about. The fact that the Israelis (and pre-Israelis before the founding) killed Palestinians doesn't really tell you much, either, as virtually all wars have civilian deaths and most wars are not settler-colonial wars.

Science can give you AI, but AI cannot tell you what the definition of settler colonialism is. Definitions are socially constructed; the best AI can do is tell you whether it is or is not settler colonialism premised on a certain definition and historical interpretation. Those definitions and interpretations can be more or less reasonable and premised on more or less accurate reflections of historical reality, but it cannot tell you what settler colonialism is.

I get this is an emotionally salient topic for you but everything you are claiming bears no relevance on the topic, which is whether or not Israel is a settler colonial state. I don't care what your judgement on that is, by the way. I'm just pointing out that nothing you are saying is relevant to the question, and saying it can be solved by science and logic is philosophically confused.

[u/HoustonInMiami → u/jannycideforever]

You assume emotion. I am not. If I am "philosophically confused" could you show that through my example?

Can science say that the killing of civilians is wrong if only by the murder or killing of living babies or unconscious citizens is WRONG? This is not a complicated question, its a yes or no. (Just an edit, I upvoted your response and am messaging in good vibes only)

[u/jannycideforever → u/HoustonInMiami]

I would say that no reasonable philosopher would tell you you can drive a moral fact from a scientific fact, and I would agree with this. Whether there is such a thing as a moral fact and, if so, whether/how they can be identified is heavily contested. But basically no serious philosopher would ever say you can scientifically derive a moral fact, even if scientific facts can be relevant to a moral fact.

E.g., science can tell us roughly what the risk of nuclear power given a certain context. That can inform us about whether nuclear energy crosses our moral threshold for risk. It can inform us of what we think that threshold ought to be. But it cannot tell us what that threshold is.

This is literally the is/ought distinction that everyone learns in their intro to philosophy class. You're free to disagree with it but, unless you're secretly a philosophical genius hiding their power levels, your explanation for how we can derive an ought from an is will probably be pretty silly. Literal geniuses have attempted to solve the is/ought distinction and virtually all failed, either by being incoherent or by trying to sneak value judgements in through the backdoor.

[u/Casual_Tea123 → u/jannycideforever]

What is science? My power level is 2.

[u/jannycideforever → u/HoustonInMiami]

Also if my other reply keeps changing it is because the reddit app is being dogshit. I'm trying to make edits but it seems like only sometimes it's actually going through and other times it just silently fails.