Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Write an FAQ entry for why LLMs are not suitable for this bot #57

Open
dharmab opened this issue Aug 1, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Write an FAQ entry for why LLMs are not suitable for this bot #57

dharmab opened this issue Aug 1, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@dharmab
Copy link
Owner

dharmab commented Aug 1, 2024

Points to cover:

  • Air combat communication is surprisingly easy to parse because it turns out it is a context-free grammar
    • Doesn't even require recursive descent - can be parsed accurately in a simple LTR order
  • GCI controller logic is mostly really easy to implement, barely an inconvenience
    • Most of the decision tree follows strict criteria that can be expressed in a few hundred lines of code per workflow, tops
    • 90% of the problem space is middle school geometry
    • 10% of the problem space is college level statistics
    • LLMs are bad at math, traditional code is great at math
  • The areas where humans accel - understanding the tactical and strategic context of the airspace - requires both significant familiarity, training and practice as well as a briefing of the mission plan, success and fail criteria. This is not easy for mission creators/server operators to prompt to an LLM
  • Hand-written code can be unit-tested once and then be trusted to continue working. AI models must be re-validated with each change, using novel data that does not match the training data. This is labor intensive work
  • Customizing hand-written code is as easy as opening a text editor and typing into it. Customizing an LLM requires a training data set. Collecting this training data has a myriad of privacy and ethical issues, especially in regions with good protections like the EU. Alternatively, a synthetic training data set presents an alternate set of issues around data bias (in the statistical sense).
  • Traditional code is highly predictable, which is good for the developer and user
  • LLMs are a poor choice for low-latency systems, while hand-written code runs in literally under a millisecond
  • Requirement to run on a local machine without cloud APIs prevents use of best-in-class LLMS
  • LLMs will bloat the system requirements, which are already strained by the other 3 AI models this software uses
  • Most LLMs require either C++ or Python which is painful to test and debug in a Go project
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant