Given that any of these bad actors can spin up local inference infrastructure to run their operations pretty trivially, what practical effect does this have beyond just "hey, look, we're doing something"?
And learning to stop a Jim Jones, even knowing that you need to, may help you stop you from being named by the UN as complicit in a genocide, the way the UN explicitly named Facebook as having played a "determining role" in the Rohingya genocide: https://web.archive.org/web/20220217165239/https://www.reute...
Of course, if you want to prevent even the most capable of intelligence agencies from spinning up their own local LLMs at all, then at a minimum you can't ever publish the model weights themselves — a solution which itself is the cause of around 50% of the criticisms people around here make of OpenAI.
So, the UN should take a hard long look in the mirror before it accuses anyone else of being complicit in genocide.
I agree that the optics of that event don't look great. But the fact is, the ceremony was officially conducted in the name of "All passengers of the downed helicopter and their families". Because of that phrasing, the UNSC members who went along with it probably felt they had to do so as a matter of protocol.
Again - not something I would go along with, if I were in the room. But it also wasn't the personalized tribute to Raisi and no one else that you're making it out to be.
Meanwhile, Israel's primary airport is named after the architect of the 1948 expulsions, the Qibya massacre and countless other atrocities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_Airport
The point isn't whataboutism, but rather: "Credibility starts at home".
But more generally, you just haven't rebutted the parent comment. It would be weird for anyone to suggest Israel has human rights moral authority at this point (or at least any more so than any other major world power). But all the parent commenter said is that the UN doesn't have any either, which seems like a pretty easy argument to defend.
(As always, just nerding out).
Do you need to defend the UN to make my (even earlier) comment about the UN criticising Facebook?
I think my point still works even if the UN can only catch really egregious cases, those performed by those not of strategic political importance to one of the permanent members of the SC; and likewise also remains valid in the face of the organisation having a functional requirement to honour dead leaders who can at least pretend to have not been secret masterminds to the degree that Iran isn't officially at war with Israel despite the open acrimony.
If Israel disagrees, then it is welcome to withdraw its membership at any time.
At any rate, scoffing at UN decisions is hardly an Israeli idiosyncrasy. It would be weirder if a country of Israel's scale showed it reverence.
The funny part is, if it is all a disinfo campaign, then the very resources behind the campaign will downvote and attack this post and try to silence/discredit such voices. Or, maybe I'm just completely wrong and I'll get downvoted for having dumb beliefs. There's actually very little way to tell the difference between the two scenarios. In addition, does the act of me pointing out that malicious actors would want to downvote this now make it less likely for them to actually do so, as it would show their hand? You can recurse down these rabbit holes forever. Fun stuff.