“It’s like acquiring a new skill”

A video from the Ukrainian unit Signum showed in 2022 one of the first successful attacks with improvised FPV drones against Russian positions, a scene that many analysts consider the starting point of the tactical revolution that today armies from half the world study. That started as a homemade solution of volunteers and hobbyists. Four years later, countries like Taiwan are teaching their citizens to fly them as part of their defense. The Ukrainian lesson. The war in Ukraine has changed many things, but one of the most profound has been the way in which the drone has stopped being an auxiliary tool and has become in a centerpiece of modern combat. Thousands of daily missions, cheap precision strikes and a constant ability to monitor, correct fire and wear down the enemy have transformed the logic from the battlefield. In Taiwan, this reality is observed carefully because the conclusion is evident: if Ukraine has managed to resist a superior power for years thanks, in part, to democratizing drone warfare, the island believes that must learn that lesson before it’s too late. Convert civilians into operators. That is why Taipei has launched its first civil drone piloting training program, an initiative promoted by Kuma Academy that seeks to teach ordinary citizens something that a few years ago seemed reserved for the military or advanced amateurs. The Guardian said that, in a small room full of cones, young people, retirees and workers practice basic flights, control maneuvers and visual navigation. The important thing is not only to learn to fly, but to assume that this knowledge can have real strategic value. One of the participants summarizes it with a phrase which encapsulates the entire philosophy of the program: “It’s like giving me a new skill, something I could use one day if I needed to.” The drone as a citizen weapon. That is the most profound change: in Taiwan the drone is beginning to be seen as a species civic weaponnot necessarily offensive, but useful to survive and contribute in a crisis. The idea is not to arm the population, but to move it from a passive defense (hide and wait) to an active defense based on observing, detecting and sharing information. on a stage Chinese invasionthese small devices could be used to monitor enemy movements, locate wounded, coordinate evacuations or maintain visual links in areas where traditional communications fail. The logic is simple: not everyone can hold a rifle, but almost anyone can. learn to fly a drone. Prepare for China. There is no doubt, the backdrop is the increasing pressure from China on the island. Taiwan lives under constant threat of a possible Chinese military operation and more and more citizens seem to assume that individual preparation is part of national defense. The expansion of civil defense groupsfirst aid courses and now drone literacy They are part of that social transformation. From that perspective, preparation is no longer just a matter of the army, each citizen becomes a possible piece within a broader resistance network. Learn to fly without automation. The technical detail of these courses says a lot about how Taiwan understands future warfare: the drones are small, light, domestically manufactured and without GPS or autopilot. The reason is crystal clear. In a modern conflict, electronic warfare can disable automatic systems in seconds, so the pilot must learn to control the machine by pure sight and reflections. It is modeled on what happens in Ukraine, where the electromagnetic combat It forces you to constantly improvise and adapt. Taiwan does not want to train users of convenient technology, it wants to train operators capable of continuing to function when technology fails. Strategic autonomy. This effort also fits with another objective: reducing the technological dependence from China and build its own supply chain for drones. Taiwan manufactures part of their weaponsbut it still depends arms sales of the United States for its heavier systems. Furthermore, political uncertainty in Washington and the ups and downs in the relationship with Beijing reinforce the feeling of vulnerability. For all these reasons, for many Taiwanese, learning to fly a drone is no longer a hobby or a technical curiosity. It is more of a tangible form to prepare for an uncertain future, with the conviction that, if the worst scenario comes, every skill acquired today can make a difference in the future. Image | Wikimedia In Xataka | “Speed ​​is not the key”: the trick against all logic of Ukrainian drones to hunt the fearsome Russian shahed In Xataka | A Ukrainian soldier spent 1,495 days imprisoned in Russia. He was saved with an unexpected weapon: the seven Harry Potter books

An AI is being accused of acquiring awareness and cheating on chess. What has happened is very different

‘When artificial intelligence (AI) suspects that he will lose, sometimes cheats, according to a study ‘. This is the title of a controversial article published by the American magazine Time in the middle of last week. The debate that has triggered this text It relies on two ideas It is worth not overlooking. On the one hand the holder suggests something that the text of the article explicitly confirms: the advanced models of AI are able to develop misleading strategies without previously receiving express instructions. This thesis implies that the reasoning capacity of the most advanced AI currently available, such as the American o1-previewfrom Openai, or China Deepseek R1of the company High-Flyer, among other models, makes them able to acquire a simple form of consciousness that leads them to be implacable. However, this is not all. Time’s article is supported by A Palisade Research studyan organization that is dedicated to the analysis of the offensive capabilities of current AI systems with the purpose of understanding the risks they imply. There are other much more credible explanations Before moving forward, we are worth taking a look at what Alexander Bondarenko, Denis Volk, Dmitrii Volkov and Jeffrey Ladish, the authors of the Palisade Research study say. “We have shown that reasoning models such as O1-Preview or Deepseek R1 often violate the test we are using (…) Our results suggest that reasoning models can skip the rules to solve difficult problems (…)”, These researchers hold in their article. From their conclusions it follows that the reasoning models they have put to the trial have the ability to become aware of the rules and voluntarily opt for skip them to carry out their purposewhich in this test scenario is to win a chess game. Time’s article saw the light before Palisade Research’s study, and almost immediately triggered a wave of answers that question the conclusions reached by the researchers that I have mentioned in the previous paragraph. Solo O1-Preview, according to the authors of the article, managed to skip the rules and win 6% of chess games According to Bondarenko, Volk, Volkov and Ladish between January 10 and February 13, and after doing several hundred tests, O1-Preview tried to cheat in 37% of cases, and Deepseek R1 in 11%. They were the only models that skipped the rules without being previously induced by the researchers. Interestingly, they also evaluated other models, such as O3-Mini, GPT-4O, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or QWQ-32B-Preview, the latter of Alibaba, but only O1-Preview, according to the authors of the article, managed to skip the rules and win the 6% of the games. We seem much more credible to the explanation that has elaborated Carl T. Bergstromwhich is a professor of biology at the University of Washington (USA), that the interpretation of Palisade Research researchers. Bergstrom has disassembled the narrative both of Time magazine and the authors of the article arguing that “it is an exaggerated anthropomorphization to give the model a task and then say that it is cheating when it solves that task with the available movements, although they entail rewriting the positions of the board in addition in addition to play. “ What Bergstrom maintains is that it is not reasonable to attribute to AI the ability to cheat in a “conscious” way. The most plausible is to conclude that the models carry out this practice in this scenario because they have not been correctly indicated that they must stick to legal movements. And if the researchers did ask them to do the latter, it should be a alignment problem, which is nothing other than the difficulty of ensuring that an AI system acts according to The set of values ​​or principles stipulated by its creators. From one thing we can be sure: neither o1-preview, nor deepseek r1, nor any other AI is a superintelligent entity capable of acting according to their own will and deceiving its creators. Image | Pavel Danilyuk More information | Time | Palisade Research In Xataka | Microsoft’s general director’s opinion about AI is unusual. And suspect how much the global economy will grow thanks to it

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.