☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

  • 590 Posts
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: January 18th, 2020

  • not working due to hallucinations

    It’s pretty clear that hallucinations are an issue only for specific use cases. This problem certainly doesn’t make ML useless. For example, I find it’s far faster to use a code oriented model to get an idea of how to solve a problem than going to stack overflow. The output of the model doesn’t need to be perfect, it just needs to get me moving in the right direction.

    Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that the problem of hallucinations is fundamental and can’t be addressed going forward. I’ve linked an example of a research team doing precisely that above.

    wasteful in terms of resources

    Sure, but so are plenty of other things. And as I’ve illustrated above, there are already drastic improvements happening in this area.

    creates problematic behaviors in terms of privacy

    Not really a unique problem either.

    creates more inequality

    Don’t see how that’s the case. In fact, I’d argue the opposite to be true, especially if the technology is open and available to everyone.

    and other problems and is thus in most cases (say outside of e.g numerical optimization as already done at e.g DoE, so in the “traditional” sense of AI, not the LLM craze) better be entirely ignored.

    There is a lot of hype around this tech, and some of it will die down eventually. However, it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    what I mean is that the argument of inevitability itself is dangerous, often abused.

    The argument of inevitability stems from the fact that people have already found many commercial uses for this tech, and there is a ton of money being poured into it. This is unlikely to stop regardless of what your personal opinion on the tech is.

  • Open source does actually pave the way towards addressing many of the problems. For example, Petals is a torrent style system for running models which allows regular people to share resources to run models.

    Problems like hallucinations and energy consumption aren’t inherent either. These problems are actively being worked on, and people are finding ways to make models more efficient all the time. For example, by using the same techniques Google used to solve Go (MTCS and backprop), Llama8B gets 96.7% on math benchmark GSM8K. That’s better than GPT-4, Claude and Gemini, with 200x fewer parameters. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.07394

    And here’s an approach being explored for making models more reliable https://www.wired.com/story/game-theory-can-make-ai-more-correct-and-efficient/

    The reality is that we can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube now. This tech will be developed one way or the other, and it’s much better if it’s developed in the open.

  • Hypersonics are obviously better at taking down all sorts of targets. Claiming that carriers are somehow a unique target for hypersonics is a baseless argument.

    I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.

    The US military industrial complex loves expensive weapons, just look at the F-35 having ballooned to over 2 trillion now. Siphoning tax dollars out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the oligarchs that own this industry is literally the whole point.

    Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?

    Tactical nuclear weapons exist last I checked. Both US and Russia have them. Russia already said there are cases where they would use them.

  • So you’ve finally acknowledged that hypersonics do in fact have uses that aren’t filled by bombers. Only took you a week to do it. I’m so proud of you.

    Did I ever say hypersonics were ineffective? I said they were expensive. And that stealth bombers are also effective at the ground attack role. Nothing you’ve sourced has contradicted that.

    Nowhere did you substantiate the claim that hypersonics are more expensive than making bombers along with their arsenal. In fact, it’s not clear why hypersonics would be more expensive to produce than regular missiles that bombers would carry.

    Aside from that, ballistic missiles can also get though most air defenses. MAD still works because you can’t be sure about reliability shooting down the missiles. Having even better more expensive ones doesn’t really change the math, which is why Zircon is so stupid.

    Zircon can carry tactical nuclear weapons, it’s hilarious that you don’t understand the importance of that. Zircon was never meant to change the balance in MAD, that’s what Buervestnik is for https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/walker_jspg_v16.pdf

  • Detecting doesn’t mean much if it’s just a notification that there’s a stealth aircraft somewhere within 100mi.

    Guess how long it takes a hypersonic weapons to cross 100mi.

    The sources you gave earlier about detecting stealth are low frequency radars. And they said they’re good for detecting stealth fighters. Stealth bombers are more tuned for low frequency.

    This is publicly known unclassified technology, if you don’t think that military tech is more sensitive then what can I say.

    Kinzhal (the missile the articles are talking about) is the ballistic missile I was taking about, it’s not a hypersonic maneuvering missile.

    And best US air defence system can’t even deal with it, let alone faster missiles. Thanks for making my argument for me. Meanwhile, Russia will now be exercising patrols around US coast with ships capable of carrying nuclear capable Zircon missiles, that can hit US mainland in seconds.


    Also, maybe you can explains why burgerland is testing hypersonic missiles. According to your “logic”, there is no reason for US to be trying to build them since its already got stealth bombers. Yet, for some weird reason, US military doesn’t think they’re enough. It’s as if your whole argument is complete bullshit.