Agree that AI is branding. But the rest is driven by the criticism of the branding.
The reality is that if a device has bandwidth, even a low quality cell signal, then it can implement very complex actions. Such as 100 drone swarms and F16 blind kills. Eventually even coordinated 100 robot assault “dog swarms”.
Heck, even the fact that a drone can fly like a hummingbird is astounding.
Similarly if someone (like me) wanted a lengthy research briefing on the mathematics of calibration of operators for representation of solutions to systems of stochastic differential equations, it will give me 70+ references and high quality summaries (with equations).
Skeptical is good, but also good to appreciate important new technical achievements.
Might be an idea to be a little more skeptical. How many of those 70+ references and equations are accurate? Do you know,? Because the AI for sure doesn't. It's professionally embarrassing when an AI hallucinates and it's you whose reputation will suffer as a result.
Yes, AI can do a lot of amazing things. But not everything marketed as AI is AI and even so there is a lot of systems that doesn’t work very well.the aim of the test as I see it is to distinguish between poor quality and good quality AI.
Thanks for this, I think this is actually a useful test for quite a few AIs out of battlefields as well. Need to adapt the list a little, but not too much.
Well said. PLA writers use “intelligentization” to describe how AI shortens the kill chain, but their manuals still give artillery and combined-arms brigades the job of taking and holding ground. In my Substack on Chinese military tech I keep seeing that same blend: algorithms to find targets faster, massed fires and infantry to finish the fight. https://ordersandobservations.substack.com
Agree that AI is branding. But the rest is driven by the criticism of the branding.
The reality is that if a device has bandwidth, even a low quality cell signal, then it can implement very complex actions. Such as 100 drone swarms and F16 blind kills. Eventually even coordinated 100 robot assault “dog swarms”.
Heck, even the fact that a drone can fly like a hummingbird is astounding.
Similarly if someone (like me) wanted a lengthy research briefing on the mathematics of calibration of operators for representation of solutions to systems of stochastic differential equations, it will give me 70+ references and high quality summaries (with equations).
Skeptical is good, but also good to appreciate important new technical achievements.
Might be an idea to be a little more skeptical. How many of those 70+ references and equations are accurate? Do you know,? Because the AI for sure doesn't. It's professionally embarrassing when an AI hallucinates and it's you whose reputation will suffer as a result.
Agreed. I did check them.
Yes, AI can do a lot of amazing things. But not everything marketed as AI is AI and even so there is a lot of systems that doesn’t work very well.the aim of the test as I see it is to distinguish between poor quality and good quality AI.
Thanks for this, I think this is actually a useful test for quite a few AIs out of battlefields as well. Need to adapt the list a little, but not too much.
Well said. PLA writers use “intelligentization” to describe how AI shortens the kill chain, but their manuals still give artillery and combined-arms brigades the job of taking and holding ground. In my Substack on Chinese military tech I keep seeing that same blend: algorithms to find targets faster, massed fires and infantry to finish the fight. https://ordersandobservations.substack.com