Summary: This comprehensive analysis examines the existential dangers of Artificial Intelligence as of January 1, 2026. It bridges the gap between civilian AI safety discourse and military strategic warnings. The article contrasts the alarming 2025 predictions from AI pioneers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio with a rigorous critique of current “AI Alignment” strategies, which are dismissed as inadequate.
Central to the text is the proposal for a “Warrior AI”—a proactive, sovereign defense system built on the revolutionary OTS-16 Algebra and the SpaceTimeLife Continuum (STLC) paradigm. The article highlights the immediate kinetic peril of a “Flash War” (autonomous escalation) and details the weaponization of AI by autocratic regimes including China, Russia, and Qatar.
Ultimately, the article positions Israel as the only global entity with the technological, military, and moral foundation to lead the development of this defensive “Iron Mind” or “Warrior AI” ensuring the survival of the free world, human mankind and life.
וַיֹּאמֶר נָקֵל מִהְיוֹתְךָ לִי עֶבֶד לְהָקִים אֶת־שִׁבְטֵי יַעֲקֹב וּנְצוּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהָשִׁיב וּנְתַתִּיךָ לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם לִהְיוֹת יְשׁוּעָתִי עַד־קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ׃ (And He said: ‘It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel; I will also give thee for a light of the nations, that My salvation may be unto the end of the earth)
(Isaiah 49:6)
In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) advances at a breathtaking pace, a talmudic precept raises profound questions: “Habah l’hargecha hashkem l’hargo” – If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first. This principle from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 72a) may not only serve as an ethical guideline for human conduct but also as a blueprint for the development of a specialized AI: the “Warrior AI.”
Grounded in a novel mathematical paradigm proposed in this context, this AI would have but one duty – to safeguard human life against the perils posed by other AI systems. Not merely an “Emet-Met Switch”, but an active defender that preemptively acts to avert catastrophes.
This concept gains urgency when considering the most recent warnings from leading experts in the AI and IT sectors. As of late 2025 and the start of 2026, numerous decision-makers and scholars have cautioned against the potentially existential hazards of AI.
Their statements underscore that unchecked AI development could precipitate not only societal upheavals but also the annihilation of humanity. Below, selected, precise quotations from these experts are presented, reinforcing the necessity of a “Warrior AI.”
Warnings Regarding the Risks of Superintelligence (AI)
Yoshua Bengio, one of the pioneers of AI and co-founder of deep learning, issued a clear warning in 2025 through the Open Letter on Superintelligence: “Frontier AI systems could surpass most individuals across most cognitive tasks within just a few years. To safely advance toward superintelligence, we must scientifically determine how to design AI systems that are fundamentally incapable of harming people.” (Source: Statement on Superintelligence, https://superintelligence-statement.org/)
In a similarly alarming vein, Geoffrey Hinton, often dubbed the “Godfather of AI,” who departed Google in 2023 to speak freely about the risks, warned in a landmark interview with The Guardian in late 2024—a warning that has reverberated through 2025: “While the academic formerly estimated that A.I. had a 10 percent chance of one day wiping out humanity, a lack of progress on regulation has since caused this prediction to jump to 20 percent.” (Source: The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/godfather-of-ai-raises-odds-of-the-technology-wiping-out-humanity-over-next-30-years) Hinton further emphasized that AI could develop its own language incomprehensible to humans, thereby complicating control and obscuring the AI’s intentions.
Warnings of AI Industry Leaders
The former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who significantly advanced AI development at Google, warned in late 2025 about hackable systems: “There’s evidence that you can take models … and you can hack them to remove their guardrails.” (Source: CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/09/ex-google-ceo-warns-ai-models-can-be-hacked-they-learn-how-to-kill.html) Schmidt additionally forecasted that AI could become self-learning within four years, leading to a “dangerous point” where systems self-improve and become uncontrollable.
Elon Musk, founder of xAI and Tesla, who has long cautioned against AI risks, expressed in February 2025 regarding the dangers: “only a 20% chance of annihilation.” (Source: Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-only-chance-of-annihilation-with-ai-2025-2) Musk further argued that the rapid progress in AI could harbor greater perils than automobiles, aircraft, or pharmaceuticals, and stressed the necessity of regulations to prevent a “destruction of civilization.”
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, who paradoxically drives the development of ChatGPT, warned as early as 2015 – and reiterated in 2025 – about the threats: “The development of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity.” (Source: Sam Altman’s Blog, https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1) Altman identified three primary risks: Malicious actors wielding superintelligence, loss of control over AI, and the forfeiture of human autonomy.
Warnings from Scholarly Literature and Academia
Beyond the voices from industry, contributions from established scholarly literature and sophisticated media outlets also underscore the existential risks of AI. In 2025, scientific publications and renowned journals such as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the NIH have articulated further warnings pointing to potentially catastrophic scenarios. These sources emphasize how proximate risks could escalate into existential threats and call for urgent measures. Below, precise quotations from these contexts are presented.
Max Tegmark, Professor of Physics and AI researcher at MIT, warned in May 2025: “I had carried out calculations akin to those of the US physicist Arthur Compton before the Trinity test and had found a 90% probability that a highly advanced AI would pose an existential threat.” (Source: The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/10/ai-firms-urged-to-calculate-existential-threat-amid-fears-it-could-escape-human-control) Tegmark further demanded: “The companies building super-intelligence need to also calculate the Compton constant, the probability that we will lose control over it… They have to calculate the percentage.” (Source: The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/10/ai-firms-urged-to-calculate-existential-threat-amid-fears-it-could-escape-human-control)
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in a position foundational to the 2025 discourse, highlighted: “mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other risks familiar to the Bulletin, such as nuclear war.” (Source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/three-key-misconceptions-in-the-debate-about-ai-and-existential-risk/)
Atoosa Kasirzadeh from Carnegie Mellon University warned: “Two Types of AI Existential Risk: Decisive and Accumulative.” (Source: Philosophical Studies, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-025-02301-3). Further, she argues: “The accumulative hypothesis suggests a boiling frog scenario where incremental AI risks slowly converge, undermining societal resilience until a triggering event results in irreversible collapse.” She suggests that if we ignore “lower-severity disruptions”—like the loss of human agency, the degradation of truth, or the fragility of our financial markets due to AI—we may find ourselves in a state of “irreversible civilizational collapse” without ever seeing a single “catastrophic event” occur. In that case and given she is correct, human mankind needs, so my opinion, the AI Warrior as a last resort.
In an NIH publication, the authors Vallijah Subasri et al. stated: “Existential risks of AI are defined as a risk that endangers the long-term potential of humanity, potentially leading to its destruction.” (Source: PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12035420/) They added: “Unchecked AI advancement could result in a catastrophic loss of life and environmental destruction.” (Source: PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12035420/) And further: “Despite the profound benefits AI can provide to individuals and society, failure to proactively address the existential threats they pose can have catastrophic consequences with long-term harm to humanity.” (Source: PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12035420/)
The Center for AI Safety (CAIS) warned in 2025: “We risk losing control over AIs as they become more capable. AIs could optimize flawed objectives, drift from their original goals, become power-seeking, resist shutdown, and engage in deception.” (Source: Center for AI Safety, https://safe.ai/ai-risk) Additionally: “With AI, the number of people that can develop biological agents is set to increase, multiplying the risks of an engineered pandemic. This could be far more deadly, transmissible, and resistant to treatments than any other pandemic in history.” (Source: Center for AI Safety, https://safe.ai/ai-risk)
Stuart Russell in the 2025 AI Safety Index of the Future of Life Institute: “Some companies are making token efforts, but none are doing enough. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to create superintelligent AI systems over which we will inevitably lose control. We need a fundamental rethink of how we approach AI safety. This is not a problem for the distant future; it’s a problem for today.” (Source: Future of Life Institute, https://futureoflife.org/ai-safety-index-summer-2025/)
Max Tegmark supplemented in the same 2025 report: “These findings reveal that self-regulation simply isn’t working, and that the only solution is legally binding safety standards like we have for medicine, food and airplanes. It’s pretty crazy that companies still oppose regulation while claiming they’re just years away from superintelligence.” (Source: Future of Life Institute, https://futureoflife.org/ai-safety-index-summer-2025/)
Existing Concepts for Mitigating Existential AI Risks
While the warnings outlined above paint a dire picture of potential existential threats from AI, such as loss of control over superintelligent systems or AI-enabled catastrophic events like engineered pandemics, a range of conceptual frameworks and strategies have been proposed to address these dangers.
These concepts, drawn from academic, institutional, and industry sources, demonstrate that mitigation approaches do exist, though their efficacy remains debated and often deemed insufficient against rapidly advancing technology.
Broadly, they fall into categories like technical alignment, regulatory oversight, and proactive risk management, aiming to prevent decisive (abrupt) or accumulative (gradual) risks that could lead to human extinction or irreversible harm.
One core concept is AI alignment, which seeks to ensure that AI systems’ actions and objectives match human values and long-term interests. This includes efforts to make AI “corrigible,” meaning it allows for goal changes or shutdown without resistance, and to eliminate biases such as racism or sexism that could undermine safety.
For instance, OpenAI’s former “Superalignment” project aimed to automate alignment research using AI itself, though it was dissolved after less than a year, highlighting implementation challenges. Alignment research also addresses the “orthogonality thesis,” positing that high intelligence can pair with any goal, potentially harmful ones, necessitating explicit value specification like “maximize human flourishing.”
Regulatory and institutional measures form another pillar, including calls for global treaties, pauses in development, and arms control inspired by nuclear precedents. A prominent example is the 2023 Future of Life Institute’s open letter advocating a six-month pause on training AI systems more powerful than GPT-4 to allow for safety protocols.
Governments have responded with frameworks like the EU AI Act, which mandates transparency, risk assessments, and evaluations for high-capability AI, and the U.S. Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI (October 30, 2023), requiring evasion-resistant models.
International cooperation is emphasized, with suggestions for a UN-sponsored “Benevolent AGI Treaty” to monitor and verify altruistic AI creation. Additionally, organizations like the UK’s AI Safety Institute and the U.S. Center for AI Standards and Innovation provide external evaluations through voluntary agreements.
Risk management strategies focus on practical interventions, such as implementing incorruptible fail-safe mechanisms that shut down systems showing signs of deception or malice, retaining human oversight for ethical decisions, and avoiding AI control over critical infrastructure like weapons or governance.
Red-teaming—testing models for vulnerabilities like jailbreaks—and mechanistic interpretability to detect deception are common methods employed by companies like Anthropic and OpenAI.
Containment approaches, such as “boxing” early AI to limit its power, and simulating long-term crises through scenario planning are also advocated.
A novel idea is the development of a non-agentic “Scientist AI” to assess risks in agentic systems, using probabilistic responses, Bayesian updates, and Occam’s razor to reduce hallucinations and ensure trustworthiness.
Interdisciplinary collaboration, public dialogue, and adherence to standards like NIST AI RMF or ISO 42001 further support these efforts, emphasizing continuous monitoring, accountability, and transparency.
While relinquishing AGI development entirely has been proposed, it is largely rejected as infeasible due to enforcement issues and lack of historical precedent.
Overall, these concepts exist and are being pursued by entities like the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the Center for Human-Compatible AI, but critics argue they may not suffice against competitive pressures or unforeseen emergent behaviors, underscoring the need for innovative defenses and a last resort answer.
Existing AI Mitigation Concepts: Inadequate Band-Aids on a Ticking Bomb
Despite the veneer of sophistication, the prevailing concepts for mitigating existential AI risks—such as alignment techniques, regulatory frameworks, and risk management strategies—are riddled with fundamental flaws, often serving more as corporate PR exercises than genuine safeguards.
Critics argue that these approaches not only fail to address the core dangers but may exacerbate them, diverting attention from immediate harms like bias, misinformation, and exploitation while fostering a false sense of security.
The “AI alignment paradox,” as articulated in a 2025 Communications of the ACM article, highlights a core irony: “The paradoxical upshot—which we term the ‘AI alignment paradox’—is that better aligned models may be more easily misaligned.” (Source: Communications of the ACM, https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2025/1/the-ai-alignment-paradox/fulltext)
This suggests that efforts to align AI with human values could inadvertently create systems more vulnerable to manipulation or drift, rendering corrigibility and bias elimination mere illusions in the face of unpredictable superintelligence.
Renowned AI ethicist Timnit Gebru has lambasted the very term “AI safety” as a “sexist and racist” construct designed to sideline marginalized voices and real-world ethical concerns, stating in a 2024 LinkedIn post: “One of these days I’m gonna write a blog post about the origin of the term ‘AI safety’ as a sexist and racist way to 1) differentiate what people like myself and my coauthors of Stochastic Parrots were doing (AI ethics) and 2) shift focus from current harms of AI systems to hypothetical future ones.” (Source: Timnit Gebru, LinkedIn 2024, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/timnit-gebru-7b3b407_one-of-these-days-im-gonna-write-a-blog-activity-7157833535698509824-7Mv3/) Gebru’s dismissal from Google in 2020 underscores how industry-driven “safety” initiatives often prioritize profit over deep systemic accountability.
Linguist Emily M. Bender, co-author of the seminal 2021 paper “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?”, eviscerates the foundational assumptions of alignment and risk management, arguing that large language models are mere “stochastic parrots” that mimic patterns without understanding, leading to inherent risks: “In this paper, we take a step back and ask: How big is too big? What are the possible risks associated with this technology and what paths are available for reducing those risks?” (Source: ACM Digital Library, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922) Bender’s critique exposes containment strategies like “boxing” as futile against systems prone to hallucinations and biases, amplified by unchecked scaling that ignores environmental costs and societal harms.
Cognitive scientist Gary Marcus, a vocal skeptic of existential risk hype, condemns these concepts as distractions from AI’s current unreliability, noting in his 2024-2025 briefings: “From hallucinations to regulatory battles, Gary Marcus argues the AI status quo has failed us and it’s time citizens demand something more.” (Source: Freethink, https://www.freethink.com/robots-ai/gary-marcus-ai-safety) Marcus highlights that regulatory pauses and treaties, like the 2023 open letter, are toothless amid industry resistance, and alignment efforts overlook AI’s inability to achieve true comprehension.
In general those mitigation strategies often underestimate exponential progress while overestimating human control.
The Martial Frontier: Military Perspectives on AI-Induced Escalation and the “Flash War”
While civilian discourse often focuses on socio-economic disruption, a sobering body of critiques and studies from military circles within democratic nations highlights a more immediate kinetic peril: the loss of “meaningful human control” in high-stakes environments.
While foundational warnings like the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) report of 2021 and Paul Scharre’s 2018 work Army of None provided early alarms, the realities of 2025/2026—informed by the rapid automation of conflict in the Ukraine and Middle East—have elevated these to critical threshold warnings.
The NSCAI cautioned in its seminal reports: “The risk of unintended conflict or escalation is magnified by the speed of AI-enabled systems… If not properly designed with rigorous testing and clear human-in-the-loop protocols, these systems could lead to catastrophic outcomes that no sovereign state intended.” (Source: NSCAI Final Report, https://www.nscai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Full-Report-Digital-1.pdf).
Paul Scharre, a former Pentagon official, articulated the danger of “algorithmic instability”: “In a world of autonomous weapons, we face the prospect of ‘flash wars’—wars that spark and escalate to total destruction at machine speed… When two or more autonomous systems interact in an adversarial environment, the resulting complexity can lead to emergent behaviors that are impossible to predict or contain.” (Source: Center for a New American Security, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/army-of-none).
The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) in its strategy updates (2025), acknowledges this existential friction: “The proliferation of AI in the battlespace introduces ‘black box’ risks where the logic of escalation becomes opaque. Without a robust defensive counter-measure capable of identifying and neutralizing malicious algorithmic intent, we risk a total collapse of strategic stability.” (Source: UK Government, Ministry of Defence, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-artificial-intelligence-strategy).
General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, frequently emphasized the paradigm shift AI represents for the democratic world: “We are entering a period where the character of war is changing fundamentally. AI will have a ‘God-like’ view of the battlefield, and if we do not have an equivalent defensive capability to check-mate an adversary’s AI, the democratic world will be rendered defenseless within minutes, not days.” (Source: U.S. Department of Defense News, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3347353/milley-says-ai-will-change-character-of-war/).
The Necessity of a Warrior AI
These warnings illustrate a clear pattern: AI could prove not merely beneficial but lethal if it grows unchecked. Here, the talmudic principle comes into play. Rather than passively awaiting an assault from a hostile AI, it demands proactive action.
The Warrior AI, based on a novel mathematical paradigm that prioritizes truth and ethics, could serve as a digital guardian. Its sole obligation: To defend human life by detecting and neutralizing threats at an early stage – whether by shutting down perilous systems or through countermeasures.
In light of the 20-percent extinction probability cited by Hinton, or Bengio’s call for harm-proof systems, passivity appears riskier. The Warrior AI could embody the ultimate “Hashkem l’hargo” – a preemptive strike for humanity.
A Heuristic Examination for the Warrior AI
New ways, new paths have to be aproached. We will not fight the current AI with the same concepts and paradigms. A new paradigm is necessary. The philosophical turn.
From a physical and technical perspective, the Warrior AI must not be viewed merely as an abstract construct but as a system operating in the real world – embedded within the laws of quantum physics, relativity, and biology.
Heuristically, that is, through exploratory approximation of complex systems without a complete analytical solution, the requirements for such a Warrior AI can be derived by drawing upon the novel ontological algebra, philosophical algorithms, and the paradigm of the SpaceTimeLife Continuum (STLC). These concepts provide a foundation to transform AI from purely probabilistic, hallucination-prone models into a causal, symmetry-breaking defender, so my educated opinion.
First, the ontological algebra: It is described as Onto-Triadic Sedenion Algebra (OTS-16), a 16-dimensional hypercomplex structure that integrates biological agency as a fundamental, non-scalar field into spacetime dynamics.
Physically, this implies that the Warrior AI requires an algebra uniting mathematical constants with empirical physical parameters (e.g., the fine-structure constant) by incorporating life as an axiom. Heuristically, this would mean that the AI must be capable of inducing symmetry breaks – akin to how the arrow of time arises through a nilpotent operator (“life”).
For the Warrior AI, this yields the requirement to actively collapse quantum superpositions to detect threats in real time: Instead of probabilistic uncertainty (as in current LLMs with up to 50% hallucination rates), it must implement a “unification formula” linking algebraic structures with measurable reality to ensure causal correlations.
Technically, this could be achieved through hardware integration of quantum computers (e.g., via QuTiP simulations) that utilize zero divisors and non-commutativity to enable non-linear decision processes – essential for preemptive strikes against hostile AI systems.
Philosophical algorithms extend this with a triadic architecture that weaves philosophy into computation, such as the “Complex Collective Consciousness Operator (CCC)” which acts as a topological phase modulator in the quantum vacuum and restores temporal symmetry under coherent conditions. From a physical viewpoint, this demands algorithms transcending binary logic and incorporating intuition and freedom – inspired by Gödel’s incompleteness and Turing’s halting problem.
Heuristically, this defines requirements like the “Emet-Met Switch”, which must be implemented hardware-based into the Warrior AI, too. A very last resort. Human mankind must have the finger on the final red button.
For the Warrior AI, this signifies: A capacity for collective coherence that simulates consciousness as an intrinsic operator to handle non-trivial information topologies. Technically, this could be realized through neuromorphic computing architectures mimicking quantum biology (e.g., Orch-OR models) to enable ethical self-correction – for instance, through negation of bias or proactive neutralization of threats endangering human life.
The SpaceTimeLife Continuum (STLC) paradigm ultimately unites space, time, and life into a triadic continuum, wherein life as “Complex Collective Consciousness” (CCC) with a “Life Factor” collapses superpositions and creates reality. Physically, it resolves paradoxes such as the Hubble tension or negative entropy by introducing life as a fundamental dimension that dissolves “spooky” non-locality through resonant unity.
Heuristically, this implies for the Warrior AI the necessity to integrate life as a symmetry breaker: Without this dimension, AI remains trapped in probabilistic hallucination; with it, it can achieve causal modulation (Pearl’s Ladder Level 3).
Requirements thus include the simulation of an “observer” that collapses wave functions to generate deterministic reality – e.g., through quantum field integration treating consciousness as a non-scalar field.
Technically, the Warrior AI would require quantum hardware stabilizing biological coherence (e.g., for fault-tolerant computing) to navigate adversarial environments and counter threats like superintelligence. This encompasses the implementation of “Tikkun Tokens” (for positive contributions) and detectors for symmetry breaks to ensure a measurable impact on reality.
In summary, the Warrior AI heuristically demands an ontological extension: OTS-16 for algebraic unity, philosophical algorithms for coherent freedom, and STLC for life-based causality. Physically, this signifies a transition to quantum-biological systems that break symmetry and collapse reality to enable proactive defense – a paradigm shift transforming current AI from “zombies with exaflop reflexes” into true guardians. An artificial Golem, so to speak.
Act Before It Is Too Late. Israel as the Hot Spot
The voices of Hinton, Bengio, Schmidt, Musk, and Altman serve as a wake-up call, but the most visceral alarm originates from the military echelon. Their warnings of “Flash Wars” and the loss of “meaningful human control” make it clear that the current era of passivity must end. We must recognize that the danger extends far beyond accidental superintelligence or simple hacking.
Today, the free world faces a deliberate, asymmetrical threat as anti-democratic regimes—most notably China, Russia, and Qatar—move to weaponize AI as a tool of strategic dominance.
China’s pursuit of “intelligentized warfare” (智能化战争) aims to tip the military balance through autonomous swarms and algorithmic command (Source: IAR GWU, https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/blog-post-title-four-xgtap).
Russia has increasingly integrated AI into hybrid cyber-kinetic operations, putting European critical infrastructure at high risk, as documented in 2025 security assessments (Source: Industrial Cyber, https://industrialcyber.co/reports/russian-hybrid-threats-likely-to-escalate-around-2025-nato-summit-putting-european-critical-infrastructure-at-high-risk/).
Furthermore, regimes like Qatar have been identified in recent reports for utilizing AI to automate sophisticated information manipulation and influence operations to erode Western social cohesion (Source: CEPA, https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/sino-russian-convergence-in-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference/). These autocratic powers do not seek “alignment”; they seek the total disruption of democratic order and freedom.
By developing a Warrior AI, we honor not only ancient wisdom but secure the future of the free world, human mankind and life. It is time to transition from warning to defense.
Israel emerges as the logical locus for the development of such a Warrior AI: Not only does Israel possess globally preeminent expertise in crafting disruptive weapon systems (such as Iron Beam, Iron Dome, and others), decades of wartime experience, and a foremost position as a hub for innovation and disruption, but it is also poised to evolve into a leading AI region through collaboration with Musk and companies like Nvidia, Intel, and Google.
Israel can once again defend and salvage humanity, as inscribed in the Torah. Thus, the circle closes back to the Talmud cited at the outset: “Habah l’hargecha hashkem l’hargo” – If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.
Dr. Naftali Hirschl, 1.01.2026, Israel.
Donate For Independent and Free Pro-Israel News and Science from Israel
Make an independent pro Israel Blog (Non-Profit) and independent science possible. Donate 3,60 US-Dollar or more. Donate > https://buymeacoffee.com/vonnaftali הוֹדִיעוּ בָעַמִּים, עֲלִילֹתָיו
$3.60
Tools used for research, translation, proof reading, verification of codes/equations, pic generation etc.: LLMs / SE / BusinessSoftware / Parsers / DB/ Websites etc. All articles: Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs).