Did nobody really question the usability of language models in designing war strategies?

  • anteaters@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Did nobody really question the usability of language models in designing war strategies?

    Correct, people heard “AI” and went completely mad imagining things it might be able to do. And the current models act like happy dogs that are eager to give an answer to anything even if they have to make one up on the spot.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      LLM are just plagiarizing bullshitting machines. It’s how they are built. Plagiarism if they have the specific training data, modify the answer if they must, make it up from whole cloth as their base programming. And accidentally good enough to convince many people.

      • Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        How is that structurally different from how a human answers a question? We repeat an answer we “know” if possible, assemble something from fragments of knowledge if not, and just make something up from basically nothing if needed. The main difference I see is a small degree of self reflection, the ability to estimate how ‘good or bad’ the answer likely is, and frankly plenty of humans are terrible at that too.

          • fishos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah, and a car uses more energy than me. It still goes faster. What’s your point? The debate isn’t input vs output. It’s only about output(the ability of the AI).