| ▲ | dwoldrich 3 hours ago |
| > Well, that didn't happen. The military had stealth aircraft in the 70's. I'll bet they had LLM or better in the 80's and the tech we have now is the consumer-grade version they seeded into industry in the 2020's. |
|
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There's 0 chance of that. You can maybe say that for things like material science, nuclear stuff, weird physics, and so on (basically anything relating to making big booms, delivering big booms, or ensuring others can't make big booms). But having LLMs as we understand them now in the 80s would be impossible. They simply didn't have the compute necessary. The entire world combined didn't have it. For reference, a single 4090 GPU has more FP8 flops than the top supercomputer in 2007. A 4x 4090 computer (something you can buy today for ~10k) would be better than to top supercomputer in 2010 [1]. There's a reason deep learning only started to really work in the past few decades. We had the "theory" for a while, but no compute to actually put it in practice. And the current models are being trained on 10s to 100s of thousand of enterprise GPUs, that make the 4090 look like a toy. [1] - https://timdettmers.com/2023/01/30/which-gpu-for-deep-learni... |
| |
| ▲ | dwoldrich 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why are you so certain you know what tech existed in the 80's? NASA used Commodore 64's as part of the constellation of computers needed to launch the space shuttle. That whole program was pretty hokey. That silliness doesn't preclude some radically advanced compute tech from existing elsewhere at the same time. Of course something like that would be ultra secret and you and I wouldn't be told about it. You have to be told something before you can believe it, right? You also get to choose whether you believe that something you're told is 100% god's honest truth or a load of bullshit as well. It's kindof sad to see people try to gatekeep thought here. Lot of rigid thinkers. I recall Intel in the 90's trying to build clockless pentiums. They couldn't figure it out or maybe it had integration problems with clockful peripherals and it never came to fruition. But I wondered if that was some furtive attempt to seed some tech into industry. I just try to keep an open mind to these sorts of things. | | |
| ▲ | adrianN an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Far-out theories need solid evidence to be believable. However, there is not even circumstantial evidence to suggest that anybody was five decades ahead of public technology. You might rather claim that the military has super advanced aircraft, at least we have lots of sightings of UFOs doing apparently miraculous aerial acrobatics. | | | |
| ▲ | moron4hire 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Military grade" means overpriced and 5-10 years late. | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I just try to keep an open mind to these sorts of things. An open mind doesn't mean "a mind full of open circuits." Why are you so certain you know what tech existed in the 80's? Useful LLMs could not have been built without deep-UV semiconductor fabrication at scale, which in turn can't exist without a massive, complex supply chain that envelops the globe like a spiderweb. Such technology could not have been built speculatively, or without people noticing, or with the physics and material science of the day. We didn't even know how to make blue LEDs then! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bsenftner 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I had research lab exposure to what the US military had in the 80's, the groups I saw were hyper focused on 3D visualizations in support of in-the-field strategy. Think wireframes superimposed over a live camera feed, with those wireframes being the horizon line and what are the items beyond their current range of view. A building wall is simply a wireframe, and the floors and every type of sensor they could get to feed into visualizations to see inside and past buildings, hills, any navigable area. |
|
| ▲ | blooalien 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I'll bet they had LLM or better in the 80's and the tech we have now is the consumer-grade version they seeded into industry in the 2020's. They didn't have LLMs but they did have "AI" already (for a fair while by then). It wasn't much anything like what we have now really, but it did exist and by the current standards of that time period it was pretty much straight out of science fiction. (Imagine how shocked they'd be seeing what all we have now. "Supercomputers" in nearly every pocket, widespread broadband Internet, LLMs, etc, etc.) You're definitely right though in thinking that they had technologies far beyond what they told the public about. That's been the case since before my own lifetime at least, and absolutely certainly still true today. |
| |
| ▲ | dwoldrich 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I should think so! I wonder what those original AI were used for. | | |
| ▲ | blooalien an hour ago | parent [-] | | > I wonder what those original AI were used for. Inventing, learning about, and exploring new technology and ideas, just as many experiments we do today are. :) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | not-a-llm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| the same military is using computers with Windows and Xbox controllers and got upset when Anthropic didn't want to let them use their LLM |
| |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | While I think GP comment was a bit looney, the first sentence is a fairly weak counterargument. Xbox controllers especially are used specifically for familiarity purposes. The US military can and does produce significantly more advanced control planes, but they aren't necessary for all purposes and if something is simple enough it's easier to not have to train people on something new. Likewise creating an own general-purpose OS would require significant time into training people how to use it. | | |
| ▲ | not-a-llm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | sure, I was just talking about this Hollywood myth that the military is far ahead of everyone else, including in computing matters when we all know the military procurement birrocracy |
| |
| ▲ | dwoldrich 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not saying the movie War Games was a limited hangout for a super-intelligent secret military computer system/network that already existed. I'm just saying it could have been. I see those trillion dollar data centers we're building in the US are classed as military installations or at least appear to be a public-private partnerships where the data centers are being built on air force bases. Perhaps the consumer compute tech has advanced to the point that it's good enough to host the next phase of intelligence for the military. Maybe all the water AI datacenters need is for energy, not cooling. |
|
|
| ▲ | ziofill 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I’ll take that bet |
|
| ▲ | convolvatron 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| that's really unlikely. in the 80s the US military had several AI labs and was working with academia...I worked with some. the focus was nearly exlucsively on logic programming and 'expert systems', a path which failed miserably leading to an 'AI winter'. somewhere around 1990, working at a Dod lab, I picked up on the 'neural network' craze and did a little work. it seemed interesting, but not that much different than using adaptive filters for signal processing. that seemed to be the general consensus, that there wasn't a lot of of interesting behavior or depth there. the number of weights and sizes of super computers at the time were a good 3-4 decimal orders of magnitude lower than what's being thrown today. so unless the military ran a giant expensive program just to hide the fact that they actually had machines 10000x faster than the $50M (in 80s money) supercomputers of the day, and had trained them on a corpus they whipped up out of nowhere (the amount of information on the internet at the time could probably have fit on a few of todays phones), it probably didn't happen. |
| |
| ▲ | dwoldrich 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > so unless the military ran a giant expensive program just to hide the fact that they actually had machines 10000x faster than the $50M (in 80s money) supercomputers of the day, and had trained them on a corpus they whipped up out of nowhere (the amount of information on the internet at the time could probably have fit on a few of todays phones), it probably didn't happen. Well, did they? They do fritter away a lot of money. Maybe there's a long-running black budget somewhere that could account for it. You are framing your argument in technologies and technological progressions that you are familiar with. Reality isn't so neat though and there are surely many technological paths to artificial intelligence they could have exploited. |
|