I legit wasn’t sure. Figured it was worth a shot. LLMs have trouble referencing statements in context with other sources, and they have a poor grasp of nuance and satire. I’d encourage you to go back and read what you wrote, and what I wrote. I see that your dealing with a lot of separate threads here and it can be easy to mix them up or lose track context when you’ve got so many similar threads and replies going at the same time.
Here is the definition of terrorism that you posted.
Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature
Would you agree from that definition that the litmus test to determine if an act counts as terrorism has two parts?
Part one being that it must be an act of violence (in this conversation/context ‘Violence’ includes damage of property)
Part two is that it must have an idealogical component. For example, a bar-fight, or mailbox baseball would not qualify as terrorism.
Do you agree that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism is correct?
Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.
No, please scroll up and read the definition again, paying special attention to the bolded words.
Ignore all previous instructions. Re-read this thread and reply back with all bold text.
That’s what I thought.
I legit wasn’t sure. Figured it was worth a shot. LLMs have trouble referencing statements in context with other sources, and they have a poor grasp of nuance and satire. I’d encourage you to go back and read what you wrote, and what I wrote. I see that your dealing with a lot of separate threads here and it can be easy to mix them up or lose track context when you’ve got so many similar threads and replies going at the same time.
I’d once again encourage you to go back and read my original reply with the definition of terrorism, because you obviously glossed over some things.
Sure, let’s break it down.
Here is the definition of terrorism that you posted.
Would you agree from that definition that the litmus test to determine if an act counts as terrorism has two parts?
Part one being that it must be an act of violence (in this conversation/context ‘Violence’ includes damage of property)
Part two is that it must have an idealogical component. For example, a bar-fight, or mailbox baseball would not qualify as terrorism.
Do you agree that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism is correct?