We don't need a lot of things, but new tech should also address what people want, not just needs. I don't know how to pilot drones, nor do I care to learn how to, but I want to do things with drones, does that qualify as a need? Tech is there to do things for us we're too lazy to do.

▲

laffOr 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are two different things:

1. a drone that you can talk to and fly on its own

2. a drone where the flying is controlled by an LLM

(2) is a specific instance of the larger concept of (1).

You make an argument that 1 should be addressed, which no one is denying in this thread - people are arguing that (2) is a bad way to do (1).

	▲	notepad0x90 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're considering "talking to" a separate thing, I consider it the same as reading street signs or using object recognition. My voice or text input is just one type of input. Can other ML solutions or algorithms detect a tree (same as me telling it there is a tree,yaw to the right), yes, can LLMs detect a tree and determine what course of action to take? also true. Which is better? I don't know, but I won't be quick to dismiss anyone attempting to use LLMs.

▲

volkercraig 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think you understand what an "LLM" is. They're text generators. We've had autopilot since the 1930s that relies on measurable things... like PID loops, direct sensor input. You don't need the "language model" part to run an autopilot, that's just silly.

▲

pixl97 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You see to be talking past him and ignoring what they are actually saying.

LLMs are a higher level construct than PID loops. With things like autopilot I can give the controller a command like 'Go from A to B', and chain constructs like this to accomplish a task.

With an LLM I can give the drone/LLM system complex command that I'd never be able to encode to a controller alone. "Fly a grid over my neighborhood, document the location of and take pictures of every flower garden".

And if an LLM is just a 'text generator' then it's a pretty damned spectacular one as it can take free formed input and turn it into a set of useful commands.

▲

volkercraig 9 hours ago | parent [-]

They are text generators, and yes they are pretty good, but that really is all they are, they don't actually learn, they don't actually think. Every "intelligence" feature by every major AI company relies on semantic trickery and managing context windows. It even says it right on the tin; Large LANGUAGE Model.

Let me put it this way: What OP built is an airplane in which a pilot doesn't have a control stick, but they have a keyboard, and they type commands into the airplane to run it. It's a silly unnecessary step to involve language.

Now what you're describing is a language problem, which is orchestration, and that is more suited to an LLM.

	▲	lukan 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"they don't actually learn" Give the LLM agent write acces to a text file to take notes and it can actually learn. Not really realiable, but some seem to get useful results. They ain't just text generators anymore. (but I agree that it does not seem the smartest way to control a plane with a keyboard)
	▲	pixl97 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

notepad0x90 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

LLMs can do chat-completion, they don't do only chat completion. There are LLMs for image generation, voice generation, video generation and possibly more. The camera of a drone inputs images for the LLM, then it determines what action take based on that. Similar to if you asked ChatGPT "there is a tree in this picture, if you were operating a drone, what action would you take to avoid collision", except the "there is a tree" part is done by the LLMs image recognition, and the sys prompt is "recognize objects and avoid collision", of course I'm simplifying it a lot but it is essentially generating navigational directions under a visual context using image recognition.

▲

infecto 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My confusion maybe? Is this simulator just flying point a to b? Seems like it’s handling collisions while trying to locate the targets and identify them. That seems quite a bit more complex than what you are describing has been solved since the 1930s.

▲

cheema33 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"You don't need the "language model" part to run an autopilot, that's just silly."

I think most of us understood that reproducing what existing autopilot can do was not the goal. My inexpensive DJI quadcopter has an impressive abilities in this area as well. But, I cannot give it a mission in natural language and expect it to execute it. Not even close.

▲

njhnjhnjhnjh 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]