RSS
Judaism Teaches Us That AI Must Never Overtake Human Decision-making
A older model Waymo self-driving car on the road in Mountain View. Photo: Grendelkhan via Wikicommons.
Those of us residing in West Los Angeles have lived alongside Waymo “robotaxis” since early 2024. For those who don’t live in LA, Waymos are fully autonomous vehicles you can summon via an app, similar to Uber, and they’ll take you to your destination — without a human driver.
Truthfully, it’s pretty unnerving. These ghostly, self-driving vehicles, eerily smooth in their movements, glide through our streets, their cameras and spinning sensors bristling from every corner of the car, stopping at intersections with algorithmic precision. No driver, no hesitation — just cold, calculated efficiency.
Waymo is a project of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, and it may very well represent the future of personal transportation — a world where AI, not humans, takes the wheel. In theory, this sounds like a good thing. Computers don’t text while driving, they don’t get distracted, they never drink, and they certainly don’t experience road rage.
But there’s a problem. While AI can follow traffic laws perfectly, what happens when the unexpected occurs? Just last week, I watched a Waymo car — caught in a traffic snarl on a narrow side street — struggle helplessly to execute a U-turn, boxed in by cars ahead and behind. And that was in a situation where no one was in danger.
Now imagine something far more critical — a child suddenly running out into the street. A human driver might instinctively make a moral calculation: swerve into a parked car to avoid the child or slam the brakes and risk being rear-ended. But can an AI ever be programmed to make a moral decision? Should a machine really be entrusted with life-or-death choices?
The Waymo experiment is just one facet of a much larger debate raging in the worlds of medicine, law, and military ethics — how much decision-making can we safely outsource to artificial intelligence? It’s not a theoretical question; it’s a real and urgent dilemma with implications unfolding in real-time.
From self-driving taxis to AI-powered sentencing algorithms in courtrooms to autonomous drones in war zones, we increasingly hand over critical decisions to machines. Proponents argue that AI is more objective, efficient, and immune to human error. It can process vast amounts of data without bias, fatigue, or hesitation, operating strictly within the guidelines it has been given. But critics warn that morality isn’t just about data—it’s also about judgment.
Take, for example, the development of AI-controlled weaponry. Militaries worldwide are exploring whether autonomous drones should be allowed to fire without human approval. But is it ethical for a machine to decide who lives and who dies? Isn’t that a step too far?
Or consider the healthcare industry, where AI is already used to determine which patients receive organ transplants or critical care resources. Should a machine — guided by cold, detached algorithms — have the power to decide who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t?
It goes without saying that these dilemmas are not new. History is filled with moments where technological advancements or rigid systems clashed with human judgment — and the consequences were dire.
One example is the Flash Crash of 2010, when automated stock trading algorithms suddenly triggered an inexplicable stock market plunge. The machines were fine — they followed their programmed logic flawlessly, executing trades at lightning speed. But the result was utter chaos. Prices crashed in minutes, wiping out billions. It was only once human traders had intervened that order was restored.
Or consider airplane autopilot systems — invaluable for modern aviation but potentially deadly when pilots rely on them too much. The 2013 crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was partly attributed to pilots who trusted the automated system even as it failed instead of taking manual control using human intuition.
Even in military history, the Cold War nearly ended in catastrophe in 1983 when a Soviet early-warning system falsely detected an incoming American nuclear attack. The system did exactly what it was programmed to do — it signaled that a nuclear response was required.
But one man, Soviet Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, chose to ignore the computer’s warning, relying on his gut instinct instead of blind faith in technology. He was right. The “attack” was a false alarm.
Had it not been for Petrov, a machine would have started World War III. No matter how advanced technology becomes, it can never fully replace human judgment.
Which brings us to one of the most fascinating decision-making tools in Jewish history — a concept embedded in Parshat Tetzaveh.
Amidst the detailed descriptions of the High Priest’s garments, we find one of the Torah’s most enigmatic artifacts: the Urim VeTummim. This mysterious tool, placed within the Choshen (breastplate) of the Kohen Gadol, was used to determine major national decisions.
When consulted, letters on the Choshen would illuminate in a divine display — but crucially, the High Priest had to interpret them. The Urim VeTummim wasn’t an oracle that dictated absolute answers; it required human wisdom to decipher and apply its message.
One striking case of misinterpretation occurred when the Israelites consulted it before waging war against the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 20). The response seemed to grant Divine approval for battle, yet they suffered two crushing defeats before finally emerging victorious.
Did they misunderstand the message? Did the Urim VeTummim signal approval for war but not guarantee success? Or was the answer contingent on factors they had failed to consider — such as whether they had adequately prepared? The failure suggests that Divine guidance still requires human judgment.
This detail is critical. Even when God Himself provided insight, it was never meant to override human decision-making. The Urim VeTummim was not a replacement for leadership; it was a tool to assist it.
In a sense, the Urim VeTummim is the closest thing in Jewish history to an AI-powered decision-making device — but it still required human intuition. This reality has profound implications for today’s world. AI can calculate risk, probability, and strategy, but it cannot weigh compassion, mercy, justice, or other human factors that can’t be reduced to algorithms.
The Urim VeTummim reminds us that even when Divine guidance is available, human judgment is irreplaceable. Which means that no matter how intelligent machines become, some decisions must always remain in human hands.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Judaism Teaches Us That AI Must Never Overtake Human Decision-making first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Is CNN Sharing Iranian Propaganda Instead of Proper Journalism?
CNN logo. Photo: Josh Hallett / Flickr
Has CNN been keeping its audience properly informed? Over the past week, the network has published at least two video pieces focusing on the sentiments of regular Iranian civilians over the Israeli and American attacks on the Islamic regime’s nuclear, military, and political installations.
However, under scrutiny, both pieces appear to parrot narratives put out by the regime’s officials rather than properly representing the nuanced views of those Iranians on the ground.
Fred Pleitgen Interviews Iranians on the Streets of Tehran
On June 22, the day after the US bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities, CNN journalist Fred Pleitgen (who claims to be the first Western journalist to enter Iran since the conflict started) took to the streets of Tehran to find out what Iranian civilians were feeling in the wake of the American attack.
What followed was a litany of pro-regime vitriol, with bystanders calling for a “strong response” to the American strikes, claiming that President Trump had no basis to attack Iran, and that Iran had done nothing wrong.
One interviewee even sounded like an official regime mouthpiece, stating that “I support the Supreme Leader with my life. I approve of him, really, because he’s moving forward for the sake of our land.”
There is no doubt that many Iranians are angry at the US for its attack on the nuclear facilities. However, there is also no doubt that Pleitgen chose to only present one public sentiment to his audience and create the false impression that it is the sentiment shared by a cross-section of Iranians.
A Western journalist would need the official permission of the authorities to report from Iran. Was Pleitgen given free rein to interview anyone on the street, or was he directed by officials to only interview those who tow the regime’s line?
And how would Iranian interviewees react? Given the regime’s efforts to crack down on any dissent, often using brutal measures, if any ordinary Iranian even dared to publicly state any criticism of the Islamic Republic?
It’s incredibly unlikely — but CNN won’t be transparent about the conditions that Pleitgen is working under, as well as the inability of critical voices to make themselves freely heard.
Since this latest conflict began on June 13, some other news outlets (like The Washington Post and ABC News Australia) have managed to present the diversity of views among Iran’s civilian population in a nuanced way, including those who are opposed to the attacks on Iranian soil and those who are cautiously optimistic about how this could affect the future of Iran.
By failing to interview anyone with opposing views (or to even mention that such views exist), Pleitgen has not filed a piece of journalism as much as a piece of regime-approved propaganda.
Erin Burnett Spreads Questionable Message
A few days before Fred Pleitgen took to the streets of Tehran, anchor Erin Burnett shared a video and message allegedly shared with her by an Iranian filmmaker named Pouria Nouri.
The video showed explosions in Tehran, while the message expressed the fears associated with living under bombing, while also conveying that Iranians have never been so united in “solidarity” in the face of Israeli attacks.
The message concluded, “As an Iranian citizen, I call on the world’s media not to close their eyes to the evident truth and to the initiator of this unjust war, the Israeli regime, and to pay attention to the plight of the Iranian people now caught in the midst of war. People who deserve a normal, peaceful life. Yet, their lives have now been thrown into chaos.”
Burnett found this message so powerful that she shared a part of it on her June 18 broadcast and read it in full on her TikTok page, describing it and the accompanying video as “incredible.”
Maybe a little too incredible.
No sooner had Burnett shared this supposed message from an Iranian civilian on her social media pages, than people began to cast doubt on its veracity.
On her X (formerly Twitter) page, many people pointed out that the message suspiciously echoed propaganda put out by the Islamic regime.
One analyst pointed out on TikTok that the message and video were likely spread by a regime plant since it echoes official state propaganda and it is illegal for regular Iranians to make contact with foreign media organizations. For someone to openly share something with CNN under their name, they would have to know that they are immune from punishment.
The fight against Iranian belligerence is being fought on land, in the air, and in the court of public opinion.
For CNN to pass off regime-approved talking points as genuine public sentiments expressed by the average Iranian civilian — while not balancing this with competing voice — is not only bad journalistic practice, but also assists the Islamic Republic’s propaganda efforts on the international stage.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Is CNN Sharing Iranian Propaganda Instead of Proper Journalism? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Brooklyn Nets Select Israeli Basketball Players Ben Saraf, Danny Wolf in NBA Draft
The opening tip between the Brooklyn Nets and Washington Wizards, at Barclays Center, in Brooklyn, New York, Dec. 13, 2020. Photo: Wendell Cruz-USA TODAY Sports via Reuters Connect
In a landmark night for Israeli basketball, Ben Saraf and Danny Wolf were selected in the first round of the 2025 NBA Draft by the Brooklyn Nets, marking the first time two Israeli players have been drafted in the same year.
Saraf, a 19-year-old guard known for his explosive athleticism and creative playmaking, was taken with the 26th pick. A standout with Maccabi Rishon LeZion and a rising star on Israel’s youth national teams, Saraf gained international attention with his electrifying scoring and commanding court presence.
With the 27th pick, the Nets selected 7-foot center Danny Wolf out of the University of Michigan. Wolf, who holds dual US-Israeli citizenship and represented Israel at the U-20 level, brings a versatile skill set, including sharp passing, perimeter shooting, and a strong feel for the game. After his name was called, Wolf grew emotional in an on-air interview, crediting his family for helping him reach the moment.
“I have the two greatest brothers in the world; I have an unbelievable sister who I love,” Wolf said. “They all helped me get to where I am today, and they’re going to help me get to where I am going to go in this league.”
The historic double-pick adds to the growing wave of Israeli presence on the NBA stage, led by Portland Trail Blazers forward Deni Avdija, who just completed a breakout 2024–25 season. After being traded to Portland last summer, Avdija thrived as a starter, averaging 16.9 points, 7.2 rebounds, and 3.8 assists. In March alone, he posted 23.4 points, 9.8 rebounds, and 5.2 assists per game, including two triple-doubles.
“I don’t think I’ve played like this before … I knew I had it in me. But I’m not really thinking about it. I’m just playing. I’m just free,” Avdija told reporters in March
With Saraf and Wolf joining Avdija, Israel’s basketball pipeline has reached unprecedented visibility. Israeli President Isaac Herzog called the moment “a national celebration for sports and youth,” and Israeli sports commentators widely hailed the night as “historic.”
Both Saraf and Wolf are expected to suit up for the Nets’ Summer League team in July. As the two rookies begin their NBA journey, they join a growing generation of Israeli athletes proving that their game belongs on basketball’s biggest stage.
The post Brooklyn Nets Select Israeli Basketball Players Ben Saraf, Danny Wolf in NBA Draft first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Denies Any Meeting With US Next Week, Foreign Minister Says
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference following a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, April 18, 2025. Photo: Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS
Iran currently has no plan to meet with the United States, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday in an interview on state TV, contradicting US President Donald Trump’s statement that Washington planned to have talks with Iran next week.
The Iranian foreign minister said Tehran was assessing whether talks with the US were in its interest, following five previous rounds of negotiations that were cut short by Israel and the US attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The US and Israel said the strikes were meant to curb Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons, while Iran says its nuclear program is solely geared toward civilian use.
Araqchi said the damages to nuclear sites “were not little” and that relevant authorities were figuring out the new realities of Iran’s nuclear program, which he said would inform Iran’s future diplomatic stance.
The post Iran Denies Any Meeting With US Next Week, Foreign Minister Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.