I don’t think whodunnit shows will be very entertaining, since “Columbot” will have no idea why it’s 99% sure the butler did it.
80 years ago today there was a meeting about that…
Some small fraction people of Jewish origin were expected to be able to live out their lives, but conditioned on any issue being fully assimilated, and not to further breed. Basically just left to die off.
Call me skeptical, but just think what this AI system might come up with for “Kennedy Assassination” or for “FDR knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand.”
The story as I recall was that a burglar entered the factory one weekend and stumbled across the family. Nothing happened for months until the guy was caught in another crime and when questioned by the Gestapo and used the information of a Jewish family in hiding as bargaining chip for a lesser sentence. I believe that this was put forth by Otto Frank, has this story ever been confirmed or discredited? I seem to recall that they even knew the name of the guy.
What factory is this?
The first floor of the annex was used as a (tiny) warehouse according to Wikipedia, but my understanding is that the Franks lived two floors above that. It sounds like they encountered a thief in what most Americans would call “a medium-sized storage locker.”
I imagine you somehow conflated the linked article’s use of “warehouse” with the word “factory,” but that’s why I was confused: there’s nothing remotely factory-like about the Anne Frank House, which should be obvious to any of the millions who have visited it. I don’t mean to pick nits, but this is about as confusing as referring to a hot tub as a swimming pool.
Edit: typos
Yes misworded but I still recall this was the basic story that was put out there for years. Believe the breakin was even in the movie. Doubtful if Anne wrote abou it in her diary.
I found an article on the often-excellent site Ars Technical that goes into substantial detail about the role AI played here. It’s not only germane—it’s a pretty great read.
No problem! I was curious too.
The accused’s granddaughter isn’t too impressed with the case against him
Respectfully: Um…so?
All joking aside…this. All of the previous researchers had this letter, and surely this guy would have been looked into to include or exclude him. So what did the AI do that a human couldn’t do or do better than a human?
I don’t know enough to have an opinion, but what “new” evidence is there against this guy that wasn’t already known, and further made known and possible to be known by AI?
As I mentioned earlier, Otto Frank did not provide this letter to the first investigation - did not want the haters to start saying “see, they turn on each other”, nor to destroy someone’s reputation on an anonymous note. It was only made available in 1963 to the second inquiry. Of course, there is very little mention of any other such information that may have come to him accusing others.
Reading the article, I find it incredulous that people in hiding would have told others where they were, that a “list” existed (except maybe in people’s heads). As the documentary How Not to Be Seen points out, the first rule of not being seen is to not show where you are. The fewer people in the know, the better, and the less they tell others, the less likelihood of discovery.
Another point I read in some article was that the police allegedly went directly to the bookcase. This suggests they had more information than just an address.
I have read that the Police sort of knew where they were, and went and got them when it was time to fulfill their “Jew catching quota”.
I didn’t ignore your post. But the letter was released in 1963, nearly sixty years ago–I understand the hesitation earlier—but my question was why, since 1963, haven’t humans been able to take this accusation and follow the leads wherever they may go? What did AI do that humans could not in this situation sixty years later with their transistor enhanced brains?
More questions are being asked. This was published today:
Publisher Ambo Anthos, which published a book in which it was stated that the Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh may have betrayed Anne Frank’s hiding place, apologizes. They have decided to stop printing the book for the time being, the publisher said in a statement.
Canadian writer Rosemary Sullivan suggested in the book Anne Frank’s Betrayal that Van den Bergh had betrayed the Secret Annex, but much criticism followed the publication of the book. Several researchers had their doubts about the results of Sullivan’s research. There would simply be too few hard facts to establish the traitor with certainty. The Anne Frank Fund also stumbled upon many factual inaccuracies.
In a statement, Ambo Anthos explains how they came to the publication of the book. Four years ago, the publisher would have bought the rights to the book ‘on proposal’. So there was no actual book on the table yet, only the idea. “An investigation into who betrayed the Frank family’s hideout seemed valuable to us because of the impressive number of experts, agencies and institutions involved,” they write.
Now the publisher, which by the way only publishes the book in the Netherlands, offers an apology. They write that they ‘gained momentum with the international publication and that a more critical attitude could have been taken here’. Ambo Anthos have postponed additional printing of the book pending “answers from the research team to the questions that have arisen.”
“We offer our sincere apologies to anyone who feels offended by the book,” the publisher concluded the statement.
If you are going to quote what seems like an entire article you could provide the source.
Yeah, sorry about that. That was from https://netherlandsnewslive.com/publisher-apologizes-for-controversial-book-about-anne-franks-betrayal-inland-3/346485/