I'm always sceptical of EU programs. Usually they start a few years later after all the documentation is finally approved, then the licenses and planning for a year and the first products come another year after. 🙄
Didn't know if danish model, I'll look it up.
Regarding Russia, I think they could step up production. They could get to a point where they launch 1000 a day in a year or two. It's possible, they are really into this war. And there is no internal descent.
You think it's possible to do so much damage with precision strikes, to cripple Russias drone production.
They have been striking oil refineries for a while now and I didn't see any credible resources about how much effect that actually had.
It's strange, but I've seen lots of comments that are not aware this is fake. The ai hater crowd is using it as their proof, the other side saying he is using it wrong.
You are grasping for straws, just to contradict me for some reason. None of that was implied in the op. You can go in the bias and how and why is the, but the fact of them matter is that is only a reflection of our real world. So using that as an argument is the same as saying ai sucks because we suck. It's true, but a pointless argument.
Btw: lies, hallucinations and "saying essentially anything..." Is the same thing. It's how they work. Nobody says it's ideal and literally everyone knows about it. It's something we deal with when we use it. There are ways to mitigate it and there have been progress there, but the tech works in such a way, that it might always be present. It's not machinations of a little evil elf. It's a technology.
Internet is the library.
It's there.
Use it.
Has it gotten worse? It got worse before ai. It got much worse before it.
Unfortunately it's is the responsibility of the user to find the good stuff.
That’s a stupid take. We’ve always had algorithms that show some results over others. This is just a different one.
There is no it, there is no being or whatever behind it.
It's all about security guarantees, not the land. The point is to agree on security guarantees and it's very very unlikely this will be NATO. This has been said so many times now, it makes no difference is Trump it anyone repeates it once again.
We need comprehensive security guarantees on the table worked out in detail. Let's say a similar agreements as NATO with the US and EU and with European forces at the border for 50 years. The proposal itself would bear weight and could be the main taking point as the war continues and hopefully freezes as soon as possible with the agreement in place.
Thats the main thing. Ukraine can give up land, as long it's not the big cities which serve as a defense line.
That is by far the best agreement Russia can get without this getting totally out of hand.
Youre insults are so great that I know now you have bested me. Incredible debate strategy to ignore all the arguments and go straight for the jugular with personal attacks. Truly remarkable rhetorical capabilities! I salute you!
Have a nice day.
Bye.
Ah, there go the insults. Surely the best way to display the superiority of your argument lol. And show who is the rational one in any conversation. But I'll let the first one side, ok. Anyone can have a weak moment. For sure I had many.
My post has sense. You can claim ,as you have, that multiple ingredients don't guarantee a tasty dish and fair enough, but in the other hand the opposite is also obviously not true. So I claim that's not an argument against what I said by logic itself.
I can also say that's not a good comparison. We have a technology that is already giving us results. You can claim they aren't good, but considering how many people use it already, that by itself could refute that claim, without mentioning any case studies which are plenty.
To the meat of the thing. Maybe I can't claim that we are headed for an ai nirvana, but the same you can't say LLMs are in any kind of dead end, especially not one that will mean ai stagnation for the medium future.
But I can safely claim we are far closer than we were 3 years ago, by many orders of magnitude. The reasons being exactly hardware and LLMs. And this is exactly the reason for investments in the very the same tech, infrastructure, companies, institutions, universities, (...), that would invent new technology in AI.
So, in the worst case scenario for the llms, they have accelerated the investments and improved the infrastructure for future inventions. Worst case.
Satirical? That didn't fit the description of the word at all. Your should check a dictionary.
All technological branches invariably slow down? Ever heard of Moore's law?
I'm just gonna stop here and not talk to you again. It's clear, you just want a conflict and I don't think you have much else to offer. Bye.
The difference here is that the current ai tech advancements are not just a consequence of one single tech, but of many.
Everything you wrote you believe, depends on this being one tech, one dead end.
The real situation is that we finally have the hardware and the software to make breakthroughs. There is no dead end to this. It's just a series of steps, each contributing by itself and by learning from its mass implementations. It's like we got he first taste of ai and we can't get enough. Even if it takes a while to the next advancement.