Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/17/2025, 8:41:00 PM
X
In reply to:
Saratoshi Nagamoto
@sowmaler
·
19d
@GaryMarcus That is not the case. The military is sitting on tons of data that can be used to train custom LLMs to be helpful as assistants and cut down on time and waste. This is already happening unofficially. Think of every military doctrine, SOP, mission brief, intel report, manual, risk
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
19d
@sowmaler their unreliability and weakness out of domain generalization makes them a poor fit for war
Saratoshi Nagamoto
@sowmaler
·
19d
@GaryMarcus I disagree. If war is going to exist anyway, I want our commanders and leaders to have the best tools to help them make better and more effective decisions.

Besides, LLMs can be an awesome tool for the military during peacetime as well. They can be implemented to help with
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
19d
@sowmaler war is not a good use case.
Saratoshi Nagamoto
@sowmaler
·
19d
@GaryMarcus And this is all I need 99% of the time.

For example, I want a customized LLM that assists combat units conducting MDMP, resulting in better command decisions for military operations. This can save hundreds of lives in a single mission. They are extremely useful during wargaming
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
19d
LLMs in a nutshell:

The statement is part of a public discourse on the use of large language models (LLMs) in military operations. The tone is critical and dismissive, suggesting that the original commenter lacks understanding of the issues. The intent is to challenge the previous commenter's perspective on the availability and use of military data for training LLMs.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It dismisses the other person's understanding without providing constructive feedback or information. [-1]
  2. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in a form of personal attack by implying the other person is uninformed, rather than addressing the argument itself. This is not constructive criticism. [-2]