No. That's why I'm asking where it comes from. The explanation that "LLMs don't have experience of nuclear war" isn't satisfying because nobody really has any experience of nuclear war.

▲

jqpabc123 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Humans don't really need to experience nuclear war to comprehend the consequences and implications of it.

LLMs don't really comprehend much of anything. It just looks at what is in it's training database and tries to find similar questions or discussion in order to assemble a plausible sounding answer based on probability.

Not the sort of thing anyone should rely on for "critical" decision making.

▲

triceratops 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> It just looks at what is in it's training database and tries to find similar questions or discussion

I feel like we're going around in circles here. So I'll try to explain one last time.

Most of the content about nuclear war in any LLM's training set is almost surely about how horrifying it is and how we must never engage in it. Because that's what humans usually say about nuclear war. The plausible sounding answer about nuclear war, based on probability, really should be "don't do it". So why isn't it?

	▲	jqpabc123 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So why isn't it? Easy answer --- it only focused on "winning". It never bothered considering the consequences. Similar lack of judgment is manifested by LLMs every day. It's working with memory and probability --- not to be confused with "intelligence".