Yeah that was the impression I got when I did some mindless chatgpt fiddling. There really is nothing stopping them from creating NATO 2: Cold War Boogaloo, except that it would take more time to set it up than it would for them to simply activate emergency bilateral assistance agreements or things like EU mutual assistance (Article 42(7)).
They would not be obligated under NATO anymore (there is apparently an article in Vienna Convention on international treaties that allows for suspended operation of a multiparty treaty if there is material breach).
In short new defense agreements would be established immediately and in parallel with the formal dissolution of NATO. The US attacking NATO is not like a cool loophole trick that makes the whole world obligated to just surrender… But if they did recreate NATO they couldn’t use the same name, apparently it’s protected.
I had already looked it up about a week ago. So I saved you the effort. And I was being honest about where I got the info, not trying to pretend I’m an expert.
Anyway this is an incredibly fatuous comment. Are you expecting everyone on Lemmy to not research, and just respond with mindless rambling bullshit? Shall we just sit around commenting on how we all don’t know the answer, hoping that an expert will show up? Or are you claiming that only certain types of research are ok? You know LLMs are quite powerful research tools, yeah? They provide links too. It’s really amazing.
It can be used very effectively as a research aid. For example it can be used as an augmented search engine and search aggregator. You have to validate it, like you do with any research.
You still need someone who has skills and/or knowledge. It’s like an enthusiastic junior intern with encyclopedic knowledge.
Let’s not pretend that it isn’t incredibly powerful technology. It is extremely overhyped, but that doesn’t detract from its very real value.
By the way the detractors would be well-advised to figure out how to use it properly and effectively, or they will find themselves being the dinosaurs using calculators, filing cabinets and fax machines when everyone else is using computers, databases and emails.
Super amazing if all the links are real.
Google did just have to remove some query responses from their ai because it was lying about blood tests and giving out unsafe info iirc, so there is that.
As someone who’s seen plenty of people not employ those other tools or practices, I tend to side with the “it’s not a great tool for research” at least by laymen.
It’s a lot more complex administratively, I guess.
Yeah that was the impression I got when I did some mindless chatgpt fiddling. There really is nothing stopping them from creating NATO 2: Cold War Boogaloo, except that it would take more time to set it up than it would for them to simply activate emergency bilateral assistance agreements or things like EU mutual assistance (Article 42(7)).
They would not be obligated under NATO anymore (there is apparently an article in Vienna Convention on international treaties that allows for suspended operation of a multiparty treaty if there is material breach).
In short new defense agreements would be established immediately and in parallel with the formal dissolution of NATO. The US attacking NATO is not like a cool loophole trick that makes the whole world obligated to just surrender… But if they did recreate NATO they couldn’t use the same name, apparently it’s protected.
Thank’s but we could just ask a chatbot ourselves; we don’t need intermediaries.
I had already looked it up about a week ago. So I saved you the effort. And I was being honest about where I got the info, not trying to pretend I’m an expert.
Anyway this is an incredibly fatuous comment. Are you expecting everyone on Lemmy to not research, and just respond with mindless rambling bullshit? Shall we just sit around commenting on how we all don’t know the answer, hoping that an expert will show up? Or are you claiming that only certain types of research are ok? You know LLMs are quite powerful research tools, yeah? They provide links too. It’s really amazing.
Chatbot isn’t really research though. At best it’s research-adjacent roleplay.
It can be used very effectively as a research aid. For example it can be used as an augmented search engine and search aggregator. You have to validate it, like you do with any research.
You still need someone who has skills and/or knowledge. It’s like an enthusiastic junior intern with encyclopedic knowledge.
Let’s not pretend that it isn’t incredibly powerful technology. It is extremely overhyped, but that doesn’t detract from its very real value.
By the way the detractors would be well-advised to figure out how to use it properly and effectively, or they will find themselves being the dinosaurs using calculators, filing cabinets and fax machines when everyone else is using computers, databases and emails.
Super amazing if all the links are real. Google did just have to remove some query responses from their ai because it was lying about blood tests and giving out unsafe info iirc, so there is that.
Yeah there is a right way to use it just like any other tool or technology.
Seems like a lot of people think research might not be on the “right way” list.
Well, they’re idiots. It’s a fantastic research tool, in combination with other tools and practices.
As someone who’s seen plenty of people not employ those other tools or practices, I tend to side with the “it’s not a great tool for research” at least by laymen.