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

  • 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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).

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It kind of irks me how many people want to downplay this technology in this exact manner. Yes you’re sort of right but in no way does that really change how it will be used and abused.

      “But people think it’s real AI tho!”

      Okay and? Most people don’t understand how most tech works and that doesn’t stop it from doing a lot of good and bad things.