7 ms·

For weapons. There is already AI piloted F16's that win against human pilots. This is already here, now years old. For Analysis. Who knows what the militar

For weapons. There is already AI piloted F16's that win against human pilots. This is already here, now years old. For Analysis. Who knows what the military has access to. I was able to ask plain old GPT about India/Pakistan, and it was able to weed through media reports and come up with something pretty accurate. Maybe we wont launch nukes based on an LLM feedback. But it will definitely be used to summarize and analyze data into reports. Not sure why this seems like it wont be done. Military has many rungs of management that needs to push out reports just like a corporation.

alganet 1y ago
I'm sure it will be done but I don't buy the version neither the timeline that AI-2027 promotes. Compreende?
- FrustratedMonky 1y ago
  Yes. All predictions are fiction. I understand that. Arguing over 5 years or 30, and some future improvement that is not exactly the LLMs of today. Not sure we are disagreeing on the eventuality.
  - alganet 1y ago
    Do not be mistaken, we totally disagree. Not all predictions are fiction. I would not try to fit AI-2027 into a news article, you did. See? Disagreeing heavily here.
    - FrustratedMonky 1y ago
      "I'm sure it will be done " - alganet I must have misinterpreted this. I really don't want to argue around defending 2027. It is a speculative view. They say so themselves. But speculation on the future has been a valuable tool in the past. So not dismissing out of hand. These were researchers with some respectable credentials. Not simply fan fiction like Shades of Gray or something. As to news. There was an article, it matched a point in 2027, i made the connection. How is pointing out a similar connection or idea, invalid? 'fitting speculation into news' . Like no connections can ever be made?
      - alganet 1y ago
        Yes, you misinterpreted. It's a valid connection, I just found it to be in bad taste and I disagree on doing it.
        FrustratedMonky 1y ago
        'bad taste'. The world is changing a lot. It is hard to keep up with social norms. -> A group publishes a white paper/forecast/speculation/theory -> News article comes out with something similar, related, seemingly a direct point. -> Making a link between the two is 'bad taste'. I'm not sure. Seems dubious to cast a natural human tendency as 'bad taste'. I think I'll go ahead keep making connections where they fit. To be fair, play devils advocate. I do agree this tendency can lead people to make crazy connections, and go down an internet rabbit whole of conspiracy. This just didn't seem to rise to that.
        alganet 1y ago
        Me: "This food is bad, tastes like shit" You: "Are you saying that cooking is wrong?" Me: "Cooking is fine, but this food is bad, tastes like shit" It's just that simple. You are free to eat shit if you want, and maybe the world is changing and eating shit will be in vogue soon, but I will continue disliking it.
        FrustratedMonky 1y ago
        Communicating is difficult. Something like 50% of text communications are misinterpreted. So AI 2027, itself is in 'poor taste', is 'shit'. Not the act of linking ideas in AI 2027 to a news article. Well. It's level of being shit, guess could still be debated. It makes a point of AI increasingly being used in decision making. And it is. So guess it depends on how much you're keeping up with current events whether you think this is really unlikely. Or how much you believe what is being reported. Or the degree that decision makers become dependent on AI, will it ever reach the levels as depicted in AI 2027 could be debated.

alganet 1y ago

I'm sure it will be done but I don't buy the version neither the timeline that AI-2027 promotes. Compreende?

FrustratedMonky 1y ago
Yes. All predictions are fiction. I understand that. Arguing over 5 years or 30, and some future improvement that is not exactly the LLMs of today. Not sure we are disagreeing on the eventuality.
- alganet 1y ago
  Do not be mistaken, we totally disagree. Not all predictions are fiction. I would not try to fit AI-2027 into a news article, you did. See? Disagreeing heavily here.
  - FrustratedMonky 1y ago
    "I'm sure it will be done " - alganet I must have misinterpreted this. I really don't want to argue around defending 2027. It is a speculative view. They say so themselves. But speculation on the future has been a valuable tool in the past. So not dismissing out of hand. These were researchers with some respectable credentials. Not simply fan fiction like Shades of Gray or something. As to news. There was an article, it matched a point in 2027, i made the connection. How is pointing out a similar connection or idea, invalid? 'fitting speculation into news' . Like no connections can ever be made?
    - alganet 1y ago
      Yes, you misinterpreted. It's a valid connection, I just found it to be in bad taste and I disagree on doing it.
      - FrustratedMonky 1y ago
        'bad taste'. The world is changing a lot. It is hard to keep up with social norms. -> A group publishes a white paper/forecast/speculation/theory -> News article comes out with something similar, related, seemingly a direct point. -> Making a link between the two is 'bad taste'. I'm not sure. Seems dubious to cast a natural human tendency as 'bad taste'. I think I'll go ahead keep making connections where they fit. To be fair, play devils advocate. I do agree this tendency can lead people to make crazy connections, and go down an internet rabbit whole of conspiracy. This just didn't seem to rise to that.
        alganet 1y ago
        Me: "This food is bad, tastes like shit" You: "Are you saying that cooking is wrong?" Me: "Cooking is fine, but this food is bad, tastes like shit" It's just that simple. You are free to eat shit if you want, and maybe the world is changing and eating shit will be in vogue soon, but I will continue disliking it.
        FrustratedMonky 1y ago
        Communicating is difficult. Something like 50% of text communications are misinterpreted. So AI 2027, itself is in 'poor taste', is 'shit'. Not the act of linking ideas in AI 2027 to a news article. Well. It's level of being shit, guess could still be debated. It makes a point of AI increasingly being used in decision making. And it is. So guess it depends on how much you're keeping up with current events whether you think this is really unlikely. Or how much you believe what is being reported. Or the degree that decision makers become dependent on AI, will it ever reach the levels as depicted in AI 2027 could be debated.