this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
271 points (93.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6598 readers
286 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No, it regurgitated the response that has the highest percentage of "approval". LLMs do not think. They do not use logic.
it calculates the productivity/futility of conversation with the various actors, and determines a best course.. it's playing a war game..
it sees that both China and Russia are only emboldened to further mischief by anything less than force, so it calculates that applying overwhelming force immediately is the cheapest option, and best long term..
No, not at all. It doesn't think! LLMs don't calculate. They don't take any factors into consideration. These algorithms are not AI. That's a complete misnomer, which makes the insane costs of operation even more ludicrous.
No. LLMs basically finish sentences.
it comprehends context incredibly well.. this one played through scenarios and saw that both China and Russia are on a path to all-out war..
It produces the statistically most likely token based on previous data. It doesn't "comprehend" anything, and it can't "play through scenarios". It is just a more advanced form of autocomplete.
Honestly if we ignore the ethical issues it is a logically consistent solution... until you consider retaliation.
As others have said this is factually incorrect. ChatGPT is not WOPR running a million War Games and calculating the winning move. It's just spitting out what it's already read.
it routinely does things even its designers can't explain, you cannot see into that thing's thought processes and speak with certainty to its limitations
It doesn't have those.