[skeledrew]

Throw Claude - or any other very good LLM - a bunch of data and it'll give results in seconds/minutes. Very similar to how sometimes when I run into a stubborn bug, I use a tracer to capture everything that's happening. Before, it'd take me sometimes hours and several scans before I find the issue, and maybe a bit more time to fix it depending on the severity. Now I just throw that full trace at Claude, and so far, 100% of the time it finds and resolves the issue in a few seconds. If the problem/question can be fixed/answered by what's in the given data, I've found Claude to be very good at finding it. And if you haven't given it the data, it's also very good at hypothesizing and telling you where+how to get relevant data so it can prove its hypothesis.

Not much different from giving it a bunch of satellite, traffic, etc data of a target and asking it to find areas to prioritize based on movement of particular personnel/equipment, etc.

[raffael_de]

seems like you're missing the forest (this being a matter of life and death) for the trees (you found some bugs).

[skeledrew]

Not really. The query was re the value-add of AI to a target identification task, which I addressed using a conceptually parallel case that I personally encountered. The AI has no concept of "life and death" or "bugs". It's just generating a response based on the patterns in the data it's been given, and it's training makes that response something the user desires (ideally).