4 ms·

Why? There are many other types of AI or statistical methods that are easier, faster and cheaper to use not to mention better suited and far more accurate. Mili

Why? There are many other types of AI or statistical methods that are easier, faster and cheaper to use not to mention better suited and far more accurate. Militaries have been employing statisticians since WWII to pick targets (and for all kinds of other things) this is just current-thing x2 so it’s being used to whip people into a frenzy.

mrbungie 2y ago
Because you can charge up a lot more when adding hot and hyped features like LLMs instead of doing good engineering.
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  I don’t know for sure but I imagine getting blackballed by the defence department is not fun.
tsunamifury 2y ago
It can do limited battlefield reasoning where a remote pilot has significant latency. Call these LLMs stupid all you want but on focused tasks they can reason decently enough. And better than any past tech.
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  That seems like something a special purpose model would be a lot better and faster at. Why use something that needs text as input and output? It would be slow and unreliable. If you need reaction time dependent decisions like collision avoidance or evasion for example then you can literally hard wire those in circuits that are faster than any other option.
  - tsunamifury 2y ago
    Yo, this wouldn't make flying decisions, this would evaluate battlefield situations for meta decisions like acceptable losses etc. The rest of course would be to slow.
- oliveshell 2y ago
  > “Call these LLMs stupid all you want but…” Make defensive comments in response to LLM skepticism all you want— there are still precisely zero (0) reasons to believe they’ll make a quantum leap towards human-level reasoning any time soon. The fact that they’re much better than any previous tech is irrelevant when they’re still so obviously far from competent in so many important ways. To allow your technological optimism to convince you to that this very simple and very big challenge is somehow trivial and that progress will inevitably continue apace is to engage in the very drollest form of kidding yoursef. Pre-space travel, you could’ve climbed the tallest mountain on earth and have truthfully claimed that you were closer to the moon than any previous human, but that doesn’t change the fact that the best way to actually get to the moon is to climb down from the mountain and start building a rocket.
  - tsunamifury 2y ago
    What? Why are you ranting like this -- I just said it can do enough limited reasoning to change the drone game... why are you... kinda going off like this? On top of that, why do you follow me around over the course of ... months making these comments. Its really extreme.
    - oliveshell 2y ago
      :eyeroll:
      - tsunamifury 2y ago
        Dude you are literally obsessively stalking me in your comments... what is the deal honestly... why?

mrbungie 2y ago

Because you can charge up a lot more when adding hot and hyped features like LLMs instead of doing good engineering.

throwthrowuknow 2y ago
I don’t know for sure but I imagine getting blackballed by the defence department is not fun.

tsunamifury 2y ago

It can do limited battlefield reasoning where a remote pilot has significant latency. Call these LLMs stupid all you want but on focused tasks they can reason decently enough. And better than any past tech.

throwthrowuknow 2y ago
That seems like something a special purpose model would be a lot better and faster at. Why use something that needs text as input and output? It would be slow and unreliable. If you need reaction time dependent decisions like collision avoidance or evasion for example then you can literally hard wire those in circuits that are faster than any other option.
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  Yo, this wouldn't make flying decisions, this would evaluate battlefield situations for meta decisions like acceptable losses etc. The rest of course would be to slow.
oliveshell 2y ago
> “Call these LLMs stupid all you want but…” Make defensive comments in response to LLM skepticism all you want— there are still precisely zero (0) reasons to believe they’ll make a quantum leap towards human-level reasoning any time soon. The fact that they’re much better than any previous tech is irrelevant when they’re still so obviously far from competent in so many important ways. To allow your technological optimism to convince you to that this very simple and very big challenge is somehow trivial and that progress will inevitably continue apace is to engage in the very drollest form of kidding yoursef. Pre-space travel, you could’ve climbed the tallest mountain on earth and have truthfully claimed that you were closer to the moon than any previous human, but that doesn’t change the fact that the best way to actually get to the moon is to climb down from the mountain and start building a rocket.
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  What? Why are you ranting like this -- I just said it can do enough limited reasoning to change the drone game... why are you... kinda going off like this? On top of that, why do you follow me around over the course of ... months making these comments. Its really extreme.
  - oliveshell 2y ago
    :eyeroll:
    - tsunamifury 2y ago
      Dude you are literally obsessively stalking me in your comments... what is the deal honestly... why?