People love harping on this one, but model collapse hasn't turned out to be an issue in practice.

Besides models get distilled for fun and profit all the time, which on its own does not support the theory of model collapse.

It feels like if it does happen, it will take a lot longer to show up. Also, I doubt they would ship a model that turns out this corrupted stuff.

It wont mean we see the model collapse in public, more we struggle to get to the next quality increase.

There's been symptoms of it that have shown up such as the colloquially called "piss filter" and the the anime mole nose problem, but so far they've been symptoms rather than a fatal expression of a disease. That they are symptoms however shows they can be terminal if exploited properly and profusely. So far we haven't seen anyone capable of the "profusely" part.

It doesn't seem like anything has changed to preclude it as a possible outcome yet.

I don't really understand why model collapse would happen.

I understand that if I have an AI model and then feed it its own responses it will degrade in performance. But that's not what's happening in the wild though - there are extra filtering steps in-between. Users upvote and downvote posts, people post the "best" AI generated content (that they prefer), the more human sounding AI gets more engagement etc. All of these things filter AI output, so it's not the same thing as:

AI out -> AI in

It is:

AI out -> human filter -> AI in

And at that point the human filter starts acting like a fitness function for a genetic algorithm. Can anyone explain how this still leads to model collapse? Does the signal in the synthetic data just overpower the human filter?

> Users upvote and downvote posts, people post the "best" AI generated content (that they prefer), the more human sounding AI gets more engagement etc. All of these things filter AI output

At the same time though AI generated content can be generated much much faster than human generated content so eventually AI slop downs out anything else. You only have to check the popular social media platforms to see this in action and AI generated posts are widely promoted and pushed on users the same way most web searches return results with AI generated pages ranked highly.

Humans can't keep up and companies are actively working to bypass the human filter and intentionally promote AI generated content.

“It’s been a whole year or two and nothing bad has happened, checkmate doomers!”

It’s pretty shocking how much web content and forum posts are either partially or completely LLM-generated these days. I’m pretty sure feeding this stuff back into models is widely understood to not be a good thing.

The past is not a good predictor of future performance.

Thanks for the assurance!

Of course HN would downvote this.

I didn't down/up voted anything, but the title/article/thread is about piece of equipment not being a good fit for a war that happens in 2026, not if war is good/bad or right/wrong.

It's like saying that war is bad in a discussion about developing biplanes before WW2. Yes, war is bad, but that's what people are talking about.

WW2 happened. It is not a foregone conclusion that there will be a WW3.

I don't know if there will be a WW3, but there's a war in Iran, there have been drones entering NATO airspace, etc, and the F-35 is used right now for that. Is it a good plane for the threats you find today? That's what the thread/article is about, not if there will be a WW3 or if war is good or not, and that's why we shouldn't be surprised to see downvotes on comments that are talking about something completely different.

You are talking as if war in Iran is a natural process that people have no involvement.

Having such articles in 2026 is a shame to begin with.

“A piece of equipment” is used to attack living bodies, if you don’t get the point, well.. there is no point to argue with you.

I'm not a native English speaker, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding something (my apologies in that case). Here's my reasoning:

- The title is "F-35 is built for the wrong war".

- The article suggests that the plane was designed to deal with other threats, not with many cheap drones and missile salvos. That it's a bad tool for the tasks it is now is used for. It's not about war being right/wrong or good/bad.

- You ask "Is there a “right” war?".

These are two different discussions.

A terrible example, but it's like having a title called "Hammer was built for the wrong DIY project" and an article that points out that "they designed/bought hammers when they actually needed a screwdriver!" and you ask if "any DIY project is right". Sure, it's related, but that's a different point/discussion, isn't it? Not exactly something I'd expect to be upvoted, hence my initial comment.

I didn't reply to defend any war or to justify the use of any weapon. I also don't have a problem with anti-war comments. But these guys are talking about the F-35 not being good at dealing with cheap drones and missile salvos, while you're talking about war being good or bad.

As long one doesn't twist what I wrote or assume bad faith, it should be easy to understand the point I was trying to make and where I was coming from.

With this out of the way, and since I'm neither qualified to talk about the F-35 nor see the need to discuss if war is good (it's not), I will now leave the thread.

Comparing DIY to war is another level of ignorance.

Well I guess the only thing I can ask you to please stop whataboutism and think about the consequences of the things rather than doing logical check.

I did not compare DIY to war, I gave you an example - even called it a terrible example! - to show how your comment and the article are about different subjects. If this is "whataboutism", then I don't know what that word means any more.

And I do think about the consequences of these weapons, both offensively and defensively, but I will focus on that on a thread about the consequences of war, not on one that asks if the plane is good at shooting down waves of offensive drones or not.

You know that part about not twisting what I wrote or assuming bad faith? This is why I wrote it. It's a shame that you've decided to ignore it... not a good way to have discussions online if one side does that.

How do you define "Japan"?

The standard way. The same way you define “Thailand” or “Bangladesh” or “Vietnam?”

It seems like "Japan" will very much still exist in either of your scenarios then.

The nation state located on the islands of Japan populated with almost exclusively Japanese people.

Good news then: it's still going to be there in a hundred years!

they're islands mon ami, it's not hard to define them -- the borders are fairly straightforward

you can piddle around about a few tiny islands elsewhere, e.g. okinawa, but the main islands are undisputedly "japan"

Sounds like it will still exist then, barring climate catastrophe.

You guys learn one term...

Yeah just say horse radish geeze

You're missing a syllable

I was going to say feng shui, but the handful of times I've seen it brought up in the context of food plating the whole point was harmony and balance . . .

Having food askew is probably messing with the eater's qi.

They've also stated at various times that they believe first use or any use to be against Islamic law.

I don't find any of these statements to be particularly credible, but I also don't think they're going to strap the first bomb they make to the closest missile they find and immediately send it at Tel Aviv when it surely means the total destruction of the Iranian state.

Hitting desalination plants across the gulf isn't much better than a nuclear war. If anything, the takeaway from this conflict is that nobody is ready for even the modest number of conventional ballistic missiles produced by an impoverished and dysfunctional state.

Yes, we basically pressed a magic button that eliminated two layers of leadership (as well as hundreds if not thousands of civilians). Now, what strategic objectives have we accomplished?

It's pure conjecture that they are now collecting tolls from ships that transit the Strait of Hormuz? You don't think they're going to sprint for nukes at any cost now?