FortyTwo

joined 4 months ago
[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think this is appeasing a bully, this is actually giving him very little. Appeasement would have involved actually giving him something. The increase to 3.5% is back to around cold war levels, which seems very appropriate for the current geopolitical situation. The final 1.5% is essentially an accounting trick to make whatever expenses you like count towards the 5%, like road maintenance or technological R&D, it would be hard not to reach this target. Plus this money can now be increasingly spent on Europe's own companies instead of sending 1-2% of yearly GDP straight to the US economy, especially once economies of scale start picking up.

This is just what Europe was planning to do on its own, but framing it in a way that strokes Trump's ego and lets him claim it as his victory. Especially after a few years this will not be a positive change for the US. I'll happily sacrifice Rutte's pride if it means Europe gets exactly what it wanted.

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Agreed with the points about intelligence definition, but on a pragmatic note, I'll list some concrete examples of fields in AI that are not LLMs (I'll leave it up to your judgement if they're "more intelligent" or not):

  • Machine learning, most of the concrete examples other people gave here were deep learning models. They're used a lot, but certainly don't represent all of AI. ML is essentially fitting a function by tuning the function's parameters using data. Many sub-fields like uncertainty quantification, time-series forecasting, meta-learning, representation learning, surrogate modelling and emulation, etc.
  • Optimisation, containing both gradient-based and black-box methods. These methods are about finding parameter values that maximise or minimise a function. Machine learning is also an optimisation problem, and is usually performed using gradient-based methods.
  • Reinforcement learning, which often involves a deep neural network to estimate state values, but is itself a framework for assigning values to states, and learning the optimal policy to maximise reward. When you hear about agents, often they will be using RL.
  • Formal methods for solving NP-hard problems, popular examples include TSP and SAT. Basically trying to solve these problems efficiently and with theoretical guarantees of accuracy. All of the hardware you use will have had its validity checked through this type of method at some point.
  • Causal inference and discovery. Trying to identify causal relationships from observational data when random controlled trials are not feasible, using theoretical proofs to establish when we can and cannot interpret a statistical association as a causal relationship.
  • Bayesian inference and learning theory methods, not quite ML but highly related. Using Bayesian statistical methods and often MCMC methods to perform statistical inference of the posterior with normally intractable marginal likelihoods. It's mostly statistics with AI helping out to enable us to actually compute things.
  • Robotics, not a field I know much about, but it's about physical agents interacting with the real world, which comes with many additional challenges.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and there is often overlap between fields as they use each other's solutions to advance their own state of the art, but I hope this helped for people who always hear that "AI is much more than LLMs" but don't know what else is there. A common theme is that we use computational methods to answer questions, particularly those we couldn't easily answer ourselves.

To me, what sets AI apart from the rest of computer science is that we don't do "P" problems: if there is a method available to directly or analytically compute the solution, I usually wouldn't call it AI. As a basic example, I don't consider computing y = ax+b coefficients analytically as AI, but do consider general approximations of linear models using ML AI.

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The central command is there, but it's led by America. This means that, if we rely on NATO mechanisms, America effectively controls collective responses by Europe, which is undesirable now that they are not on Europe's side in the conflict with Russia, and they state over and over again that they intend to annex Greenland.

A European central command and standardisation between countries makes a lot of sense to me. If member states don't want to give up autonomy, maybe with some kind of opt-out clause. That way the countries that are willing won't need to coordinate poorly through dozens of bilateral communication channels, but can jointly operate with a common strategy, and at worst, not all member states would contribute to every action. Plenty of possibilities for problems still, but a step up from the current situation.

I would personally still prefer to see a more integrated European military, though. While we will have a bunch of low-population countries all doing all possible tasks poorly, instead of having some specialise to specific strengths and sourcing collectively, the EU will always be weaker militarily than a comparable force that is not split in such a manner.

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Very good post, I agree completely! It's easy to let perfect become the enemy of good.

One thing I'd add is that many social media companies sneakily get their trackers added to random web pages or other services you might use, so doing random things on the internet could be included as extra engagement (and it also doesn't require you to be signed up to their service in the first place, though it helps them). In this case their business is the data they collect on your behaviour, even outside of their own services, and the ads they can target to you using this on behalf of other entities who outsource their advertisements. It's quite scary how ubiquitous this is.

I think what OP suggested here is a very good mindset to live by, and it will help a lot. If you wanted to go one step further, you could consider combining this with steps to try and prevent these companies from still harvesting your data when you're not even aware that you're using them, e.g., by blocking such trackers as much as possible.

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Probably many greedy reasons, but my personal favourite speculation: annexing Greenland surrounds Canada and stops any potential aid by its NATO allies in case of an invasion, since annexing Canada is one of the stated objectives of the US now.

In terms of strategy for actual national security, they already got all the access they wanted, if they wanted more all they had to do was ask. If they're the ones doing the attacking of a common ally, though, they wouldn't get that access. So it's only of added strategic value to annex instead of maintaining the alliance if the goal is to attack members of the alliance.

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

Ukraine has one of the strongest militaries in Europe. This whole "they couldn't even beat puny Ukraine" line I keep seeing is entirely too haughty for my liking. Their gear is less state-of-the-art, sure, but many European countries lack vital components of a functional military altogether. Including logistics and coordination of joint efforts which the Americans have until recently been doing.

Sure, no need to panic yet, but certainly a need to get a move on and actually respond proactively to make up for gaps, and respond jointly, to ensure that it's not going to be a matter of small countries getting steamrolled one by one.

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Korean democracy is not dead yet!

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

Me, checking what the damage is: oh good, my European defence stocks went up 2 to 4 percent today while the American stocks are tanking, happy days!

Me, after thinking on it a bit longer: oh God, my European defence stocks went up while the world economy is taking a hit, better get ready for whatever's coming

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

While you are staying, your productivity is fueling the economy, and the taxes you pay go to the government you dislike. If you flee, that's a big economic difference you're making over the years. I guess if you fight symbolically but non-pragmatically and get arrested, they have to feed you and house you in a prison which will cost a little extra, but compared to your non-productivity that's just a small bonus. Fleeing also means you get to proactively contribute to competitors and reward them for being a better place to live, which in a way doubles your economic impact. There's a reason the Berlin wall was built and North Korea executes 3 generations of the families of defectors. People are valuable, and they can't afford to lose too many of them.

On the other hand, if your threshold for fleeing is too low, there are no competitors to support, because every country has their issues, and some may be at a risk of the same developments as the country you're fleeing from, making it a pointless exercise. And your loved ones could be essentially hostages that can be used to make you stay.

So it kind of depends, but at least the cowardice argument seems pointless to me. Pragmatic small-scale effectiveness tends to beat symbolic perfectionism at making an impact.

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Slightly off-topic from the intended point, but I've heard this more often, that there's no such thing as a fish, but it's a useful constructed concept to have.

So why is it so important that we all remember that animals like whales are not fish, they're mammals? Didn't stop us from calling animals from other groups fish, why should mammals get a special treatment?

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

While nice, this seems at odds with the budget cuts to science that are horribly undermining our existing, high-quality scientific institutions. It would be much nicer if luring these US-based scientists were an addition to a larger package to invest in, rather than cut and destroy, science in the country.

We could certainly use the help, so they'd be very welcome, but if we're still getting rid of hundreds of fully set up scientists while gaining a few new ones from this, that's still a net loss...

Plus, any US-based scientist who might consider doing this would surely look at these budget cuts, see how countries like France and Germany are actually investing in scientific infrastructure, and take this into account when selecting a destination. If you want to "lure" people over, you do need to have an actual high-quality and functional system to show off.

[–] FortyTwo@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Though I like the spirit and intended message, so I don't want to be too negative, I'm not personally too fond of this approach. Like you said, everyone can make their own considerations; I'll add mine in case you find them interesting.

A big obstacle that often comes up with joint European plans is that every country wants their own local companies to benefit. This has long been a problem with defence (though hopefully a bit less so now), everyone wants to do a little bit of everything, which often ends up with them doing it poorly, while the EU also misses out on the benefits of scaling up. Or from the perspective of consumers, it's why we don't have a proper European alternative for Netflix, but instead dozens of "meh" national subscription services. For food, it can be complex; on the one hand it's good for the environment to reduce transportation emissions, on the other hand, transport is often a negligible part of the emission cost of produce compared to other factors (but not always). So it's often better to import produce from countries where it grows well, than buying locally from producers who use costly (financially or environmentally) methods.

It can get quite complex quite quickly. I'd say let's consider local products as good options with potential advantages and disadvantages, but don't necessarily view them as superior to other EU products. And let's avoid falling into the trap of expecting direct national benefit from every individual EU initiative (not saying you specifically OP, just a general point).

view more: next ›