> am skeptical of any claim that they are providing some material embargoed knowledge that isn’t available elsewhere, in a way that either improves efficiency or effectiveness of their activities,

This will sound like a hot take, but consider that terrorists are for the most part, stupid idiots. All the information they need is in books and old patents and what-not, but they absolutely will not have as much success in synthesizing that into effective plans and well-made weapons without having a helpful and patient AI agent to guide them, as they will with that assist.

If the terrorists were very smart, they'd realize that their religion is stupid, that their leaders were mostly corrupt (or themselves stupid), and they'd also probably find something more productive to do with their time.

And obviously yes there are exceptions, since we can all think of infamous terrorist plots which succeeded due to clearly some sophisticated planning and hard work.

▲

antod an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>If the terrorists were very smart, they'd realize that their religion is stupid, that their leaders were mostly corrupt (or themselves stupid), and they'd also probably find something more productive to do with their time.

In my head I was running through a whole lot groups to replace "terrorists" with in that sentence...

▲

ifyoubuildit 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This will sound like a hot take, but consider that terrorists are for the most part, stupid idiots.

What even is a terrorist?

If your definition of terrorist is "person on the news involved in some FBI entrapment scheme", then yeah they're probably not that bright.

But more generally, terrorists are probably pretty hard to define (one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter, etc), and I would imagine include a whole range of intellectual capacities.

	▲	xp84 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> "one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter" yes, but only to weak-minded cultural relativists. I don't mind stating a definition explicitly. If you would consider killing nonviolent civilians, merely to send a message to others or to prove yourself to your "god," you're a terrorist. Note: The only real complexity in the definition is that during war, embedding military equipment among civilians happens sometimes, and when it does, it's the ones choosing to do that, war criminals by definition, who bear the responsibility for those innocent deaths when those locations then become legitimate military targets. I'll omit giving examples to avoid triggering those who like to "bothsides" some of the more well-known terrorist groups lately.
	▲	johnsmith1840 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Mild terrorist sympathy right here. Just look up mass casualty events across the middle east it's very obvious what a terrorist is.
	▲	Ancapistani an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> If your definition of terrorist is "person on the news involved in some FBI entrapment scheme", then yeah they're probably not that bright. That's a great example of selection bias: if they were intelligent enough to be capable of causing harm at that scale, they would have immediately realized the new guy suggesting targets and offering to buy them explosives was an FBI agent.
	▲	t-3 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Boko Haram is not a mentally disabled person tricked by the FBI they are real terrorists who attack schools to stop children from learning. They're the epitome of stupid and backwards.