Using LLMs to speed up summarising text is a good use of them, and in the comment you linked to you ignore that he first cites human analysts for the UK context. In that context, using crowd-sourced opinions (which are supposed to be made more accurate by allowing people with inside knowledge to bubble up to the top) to give a very rough approximation of the chance of conflict without the UK seems perfectly reasonable.
Anyway, calling it the “supposed Russian threat” is idiotic, given that they’re already carrying out hostile acts against the UK and much of Europe. Or did you miss the assassinations, sabotage and drone attacks? That’s not the “direct attack” that is assessed as remotely possible - because it’s already here!
blackn1ght@feddit.uk 6 days ago
Yep. They can barely make any progress against a country they share a huge land border with. How the hell would they launch a serious campaign against the UK? I really struggle to take it seriously.
Russia’s a bigger threat in terms of espionage and sabotage to the UK and Europe.
thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 6 days ago
From the article
Russia is winning the war they’ve been in with Western Europe for the last decade. Trump is in the White House, AfD just won the Saxony election. RN are on track to take the French presidency, Farage still gets 25% polling despite the rank corruption swirling around him.
Russia won’t send troops anywhere until the country in question is deeply compromised. It’s hybrid warfare and the battle started years ago, and we’re doing a shite job of defending ourselves (because we have quislings on the inside helping them).