Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 35
- 1
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
"How the Terrorist Group Boko Haram Uses Frontier AI"
https://casp.ac/reports/ai-enabled-terrorism
I found the article a bit surreal where it talks about how ISIS sends people around to conduct AI training... How strange to think that so many white-collar office guys find it all tedious and dull but your average jihadist is like 'it's very helpful!' and they're warming to the technology. Also I wonder if these AIs really know that much, shouldn't the terrorists know how to make bombs and conduct attacks, that's their whole gig? On the other hand, one doesn't consider Boko Haram to be the sharpest minds in the Islamist world so even existing AI models are quite helpful.
It is based on interviews though and may be complete nonsense, the terrorists just lying to this researcher:
Some excerpts:
There's also some interesting intra-terrorist discourse on 'poison' which is banned under Islam and can even get people killed if they want to use it, vs 'powders' which are apparently OK for senior commanders to use. Poison really means 'fouling a water source' which is obviously very bad in a desert context, so they analogize things to poison vs just normal chemical weapons which are more acceptable? But everything is discussed in these crazy immature, unsophisticated ways so it's bizarre, it's that they're grasping for concepts like collateral damage or selectivity but don't quite have the diction for them. I think a major region why terrorism isn't such a big issue is that most of the terrorists are basically retarded, they're drawing from a population of retards. Ultimately AI won't be able to help them as much as it can for a non-retarded population though.
Skip the academic babble and move straight onto the interviews I think, that's the fun part of the article.
Aren’t Islamic terrorists generally an exception to that trend though? Bin Ladin and the other Al Qaeda leaders were pretty much all college graduates, and ISIS recruits tended to be more highly educated as well. That’s arguably why they were more successful than other terrorist groups.
True, they're smart to a certain extent, capable and determined and creative. The rank and file are pretty dumb though. In the paper they talk about how Boko Haram has to get technical support from 'the white guys', not quite sure whether they mean Arabs or Western converts.
If you really want to create a global caliphate though, what you need are large capable armies, airpower, missiles, H-bombs rather than cheap tricks with truck bombs and drones. Terrorists are forced into these unconventional strategies because they're the underdog, they lack the proper financing, industry, organization and materiel. And all of that is really a product of high intelligence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link