Yes, but I'm not sure it will be to the same extent.

I think gamifying the setup leads to internal competition that will push them harder to make sure there is evidence of their results. That may have them make questionable decisions that they wouldn't otherwise, if they didn't need the evidence dog their efforts.

Additionally, I suspect the public points system cuts back on disgruntled-ness, as units can easily see how they compare to others. It also allows them to see who to talk to, to see how to improve their results.

So, pros and cons to the gamification, but I think the pros are going to win out. I doubt that's a good thing though...

I really don't like the idea of game-ifying war and I agree with your critiques and think you bring up a good point about non-pointed aspects of the military could potentially become ignored.

That being said, I think the system is here to stay and will be implemented worldwide. I think the system reduces/prevents/solves a couple major issues.

The first being: pics or it didn't happen, prevents false reporting up the chain of command. Allows for actually well performing soldiers being promoted (with a paper trail) rather than those who only claim to be. Also allows higher ups to make war plans based on real, not falsified Intel. My understanding is Russia has a massive issue with this, but all/most former Soviet-bloc countries struggle with this more than average.

Another aspect is quick feedback/iteration on weapons and systems by users is a major improvement in my eyes. Instead of a soldier having to blindly use whatever they are given, they can make the choice that's best for them. This allows real end users to talk amongst themselves to find the best options.

A third point kind of overlaps with the others, analytics. With all the accurate information going into the system and getting real feedback from soldiers, better analysis of situations and events can be achieved. This can allow for better future planning and strategizing, as they have more accurate data to work from and the data doesn't lose accuracy playing 'telephone' up the chain of command.

Something I just thought of is its potential effect on morale. I can imagine there are many situations where soldiers may feel they are being overlooked by higher ups. With a point system they have direct feedback on how they are doing and how it relates to other units (potentially reduce disgruntled-ness). Also, maybe it could expand to nonmilitary "luxury" items. For example, unit is defending a bunker for months, it sucks, but they almost have enough "points" to get their unit a console to play in their downtime (improving morale).

I feel like you are definitely right about losing non-measured aspects. I think there will definitely be many iterations on this system and they will eventually, at least partially, be able to get those aspects into the 'analysis'.

To your question about units not getting enough support, my understanding was the rewards system is on top a base level of support. Which I'm sure still allows for "winners" (more effective units) to keep winning and "losers" (less effective units) to still struggle much more, but I think the system is going to be better than the previous system.

I provided two different examples of "AI". The "AI vision" UAV (machine learning) and a command-control logic design (video game "AI").

Would you call a video game's AI an LLM? I wouldn't because it's not. No LLMs were used in my examples/descriptions.

I can verify that I've read about Ukraine developing and using "AI vision" for UAVs for a while.

You may recall articles mentioning operators selecting targets outside of electronic warfare (EW) and then triggering the "AI", which would head for the target. Once the UAV hits the EW, the "AI vision" (mission learning) takes it all the way, making EW generally ineffective.

I agree with you that LLM are slop and garbage. I don't think that is the "AI" Ukraine is using. I think it is more akin to video game AI, which is just well designed logic ("AI") that controls non-player allies/enemies/environment/economy/etc.

If tasks are well defined and repeatable they can be logiced away ("AI-ed"). A not particularly related example of what this could look like is weekly posts I make about fediverse software.

I gather the data from sources and then do analysis on them to get insights/takeaways from the data. I could do this by hand/spreadsheet, but that would be annoying and time consuming. I didn't use LLMs, but I could/am arguing that the code I developed is artificial intelligence (AI, in the vein of video game AI) that automates a well defined and repetitive task.

I hope/expect this is the "AI" Ukraine is developing. If you want to check out what I mean about my post examples, you can head to fedilytics@piefed.zip / https://piefed.zip/c/fedilytics.

Edit: fixed spelling.

That's helpful. Thank you for pointing that out.

Yeah, I have no doubt the LLM companies are BSing their numbers and using caveats.

I'm open to what you're presenting, but I'm not sure the data you are showing is comparable.

It looks like dairy is 1555T (trillion?) liters of water per ? (daily glass of milk?). That doesn't sound right. Seems like it could be the entire annual water use in the dairy industry is 1555T. I have no reference frame for that, so could be, I have no idea.

The annual water use per person who heavily uses an LLM is shown as ~20B liters.

If those are the are the metrics being compared, they shouldn't be, because they aren't comparable. One would be water for an entire industry, the other is per user.

If you can provide more context, I'd appreciate it.

Edit: missed the "B"s in the LLM numbers, thought they were "8"s. Holy shit that's a huge waste of water, for daily LLM use.

That is not to say anything about the animal farm use levels which are astounding, but having no reference frame for those numbers, so I can't really place them in my mind.

It was an interesting read. The setup made it seem like it was going to be 'revolutionary' structural change, but the outlined rights come across as American liberal, which makes sense as you stated you used the bill of rights as a starter. Not necessarily a critique, just an observation.

A couple quick word choice notes:

• You switch between gendered (he/him/his) and ungendered (they/their) a far bit. I'd suggest switching everything to ungendered.
• I feel "Mother Earth" is probably targeted at the "spiritual" crowd. You may want to change that to "environment" or something similar for a wider audience.

That helped a lot. Thanks.

So its sort of like dnd but with nations instead of characters. Sounds fun. Feel free to ping me if/when you get a game going.

That was semi helpful, but I still don't quite get the gameplay.

A player picks a nation and then describe the nations actions for the turn (an in game month?, does it also last a month in real life?). The actions can be anything (?) and they just work 100%?

What happens when two player nations have competing actions?