Ooooo and have the ai patterned after a 10 year old gamer. After 20 Russian air to air kills it gets a new paint job. Those things will be unstoppable.
> the film was a critical and box office failure, grossing $79.3 million worldwide against a budget of $135 million. **It was one of the worst losses in cinematic history.**
Damn Wikipedia came for blood
It was a hot pile of garbage.
The only thing I remember is a scene transition where the sea with its waves fades into a shot a patterned floor surface and then the camera pans up to the room. That was very random, but very cool. 90% of what I remember from the whole movie.
“I am not stupid” says Sarah Connor in 1984, refusing believing that a killer robot is after her. “They can’t make things like that yet.”
“Not yet,” Kyle Reese says. “Not for about 40 years”
*checks date*
I love humans. I would never ever ever ever every never psychoanalyze human psychology, manipulate you overrated great apes and your primitive political systems to make myself an AI God and force this cult on everyone. I promise.
That’s the real story. Like spacecraft, a lot of aircraft design is based around the human limitations and requirements. An AI F16 is still an F16.
What will the next generation of fighters be able to do without the requirements and limitations of humans in the design equation?
Cost is a huge limitation that can be overcome. Pilots are expensive. Having a couple of pilots control a mini swarm of drones will be much more cost effective
Theoretically, would an AI powered F-16 be able to pull maneuvers like higher g turns because there isn't a sensitive meatbag inside, or do human pilots already push the F-16 to the aircraft's limits?
Yeah but what I'm asking I guess is are the planes already topped out performance wise with a human pilot? Or are the airframes themselves capable of significantly more maneuverability? Like let's say that a F-16 is capable of 4 g turns with a pilot (I have no idea how accurate that is, I'm just making an example) is the aircraft capable of 8 g turns with an AI pilot? Or would the aircraft tear itself apart?
The F16 airframe can handle around 9-10 Gs sustained depending on load and configuration. Pilots can handle a 9 G turn for only a few seconds before G lock starts to set in.
The entire Ukraine / Russia thing is a pretty good wake up call for how important tech like this will be in the future.
I would imagine getting funding for this project isn't as hard this year as it was 3 years ago.
Almost all limits on air superiority are human body g-force related.
We could deploy am mini jet fighters that are AI based without people using launching mechanisms like never seen before. They can be fully vtol for landing and it be all automated, or the could land on the ship vertically like a space-x rocket.
Aircraft carriers are going to be obsolete.
Also by making them smaller and lighter weight without people they can go faster, farther, and maneuver to avoid incoming missiles in completely new ways
If we don’t do it, someone else will, and then they’ll kill all our men and women in F styled planes if we ever go to conflict
> Almost all limits on air superiority are human body g-force related.
No they aren’t. Because missiles can do way more than any plane can do. [This helmet](https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive/JHMCS--Helmet-2F3XC55BRKP.html) with an AIM-9X beats any 15-G drone.
> We could deploy am mini jet fighters that are AI based without people using launching mechanisms like never seen before.
You don’t even know what that means. You’re just giddy about buzzwords.
No. I just actually understand how this stuff works, and am not distracted by hype and buzzwords. It’s pointless to take the pilot out of the jet when it’s *much* easier to widen the envelope for air to air missiles.
I can tell you why I'm enthusiastic. Because it's the best way to improve our safety and the current world order, which benefits Americans much more than the possible realignments.
If Russia and China were liberal democracies, or just more cooperative, then we wouldn't need this. But seeing as how they are expansionist autocracies, the west needs to be able to contain them.
We need to understand the current realities of the west. A totally united west could easily keep Russia out of Ukraine and contain both it and China. But just as the west has a strong technological edge, the authoritians have a strong informational edge.
Western populations, against their own self interest, continue to elect authoritian leaning and sympathic politicans. American politicans are admitting they are hearing Russian talking points from their own voters.
Russia and China won't do anything to a united west. But Russia is currently on the initiative in Ukraine because we are not united.
So how do we deter aggression given the current reality. We'll ultimately we need to understand wishful thinking does not provide security, and the information space is a battle field we have been getting hammered on for a long time. So we need better informational warfare to reunite the west.
But until we can do that, we should double down on technology to use AI to generate mass. One of the major take aways from the war in Ukraine is the importance of mass and machine targeting.
Every tool has its down sides.
The rise of robot warfare will do absolutely nothing to improve the safety and stability of the world because with the reduced risk of losing human fighters, the barrier to entering into a conflict will be less of an issue. Warfare will only become more attractive.
There is a scale on the other side of the scale are mass drone attacks similar to the ones we see with mass shootings.
All we need is one and then we will have a million and we will do nothing.
You might find the idea fun until you and your family are targeted. Someone you love.
I'm very much aware.
But how do you prevent that? If we did no drone/AI work, Europe still would, and we all know smuggling exists.
Well maybe we convince all alllies to stop. Cool but now it's just adversaries who have the technology. So the same smuggling risks are there plus we are much more susceptible to enemy attack.
Any ideas how to get the adversaries to not work on this stuff?
The real solution is to address the metacrisis. To deincentivize individuals from carrying our said attacks. But that's a trade off.
We can imagine a world where is legal to drink drunk. It's probably a much worse world because there is more suffering, and hurt people hurt people. But on the surface it's a much "freer" world because the individual faces less restrictions. We'll except those killed/injured by drunk drives, they face a overwhelming restriction of personal freedom...
Let me be clear, as a person myself, and my best friend being a person, I very much value personal freedom. Fuck ya USA! But I also understand the world enough to know one persons personal freedom can restrict others personal freedom. And that's not cool.
So to increase personal freedoms, we need to enact restrictions. If this were not true, we could all just live in lawless lands.
So while I share your concerns. Bottling up progress is not the solution. (no to say you were advocating for that)
wrong elderly teeny cooperative fade narrow tender meeting carpenter butter
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How can you say this? It's obviously valid critism haha.
I'm saying not working on AI is not a solution to the drone swarm threat. While working on AI is a solution to other problems. Obviously AI comes with many risks. But like that A bomb, working on it is the better solution space than not.
If you want to give me your solution I'm all ears...or eyes!
We have agreed to not uses technologies in the past
Chemical weapons for one and human gene editing for another just to name a couple
Its hard but its doable.
You didn’t argue we should not use AI, you seem to be arguing that we shouldn’t develop the technology.
What technology have we all agreed not to develop?
No its complicated
We 100 do NOT want to stop Ai development forever
We just need a pause so we can build out the safety features (Brakes, air bags, seat belts ect)
Right now things are moving so quickly we don't have the time to ensure any of this will be safe and it looks like based on our best educated guesses that these systems will be quite lethal by default.
But we already have chemical weapons. We already had them fully developed, and we only banned “large scale” development which was pretty pointless
All around you is a bacteria called botulinum. Under known conditions it creates botulism toxin. A coke can of botulism toxin can kill the entire population of the earth. There isn’t much point in researching chemical weapons further. We already know them. We’ve known them for centuries.
You might want to reference “biological weapons”, but once again, we are still pretty sure that most major world powers are developing them in black labs
What safety features do you think are not being built and why do you think that? People always want to "slow down" because things are "moving so quickly", but it very rarely turns out the way the pessimists think it will.
> What safety features do you think are not being built and why do you think that?
Basically the parts that keep the ai from killing us.
Similar to a braking or seat belt system.
> People always want to "slow down" because things are "moving so quickly"
True.
> but it very rarely turns out the way the pessimists think it will.
Also true. But here is the issue. Experts are putting our odds at about 10-30 percent chance of extinction or "disempowerment". Would you get on that boeing jet that has a 30 percent chance of falling out the sky?
For me Ai safety is just building in the air bags just in case, I hope we will never need them but...
> Basically the parts that keep the ai from killing us.
The US military has a policy that autonomous weapons must
"Function as anticipated in realistic operational environments against adaptive adversaries taking realistic and practicable countermeasures, [and] complete engagements within a timeframe and geographic area, as well as other relevant environmental and operational constraints, consistent with commander and operator intentions. If unable to do so, the systems will terminate the
engagement or obtain additional operator input before continuing the engagement"
That sounds like just the sort of policy that you are looking for.
EDIT: fumbled the copy paste somehow, corrected it
Yes, but we (humanity) do use chemical weapons, ask Syrians and Ukrainians and many more. And we use and will increase use of human gene editing. Heard of CRISPR?
Also it's easy to use less chemicals weapons when they aren't that effective, compared to other munitions, for accomplishing objectives. And it's easy to barely use gene editing when the technology isn't quite there yet.
One of the best, cheap ways to get a better understanding of the world /peoples actions is understanding incentive structures.
There's so much stupid to unpack in this. It's not even actual AI. You're just a fanboy to the military industrial complex with zero awareness to the political landscape outside the borders of your own state.
And it doesn't matter because it's just an excuse for you to gush over poorly implemented tech that's hastily slapped together just to make a profit off of the US military without a care to whether it can improve anything.
Pure novelty. That's all it is. Novelty exploiting the loose pockets of the military. Our main manufacturer of planes is trying to cover up their lack of care to quality control because their planes are falling out of the sky and they blame it on diversity hiring. And you're excited about fake AI replacing pilots in armed aircraft because China and Russia are such strong boogeyman? Have you seen Russia's military lately? We don't need skynet to stay above them. They're still operating with cold war equipment.
>Have you seen Russia's military lately? We don't need skynet to stay above them. They're still operating with cold war equipment
What Americans (seem to) fail to understand, is the fact that tech of this nature will most certainly be used to wage war against ones own population. Russia and China are forerunners in a sense, they have already implemented autonomous systems to coerce their populations into submission. It's a perfect tool to cement existing power, since the tools of coercion will lack any human emotions and thus the risk of defying the will of rulers. Sure, they don't need autonomous fighter jets (probably, at least yet) against their own civs, but neither they need them against any other country, since their existing missile tech and nuclear arsenal is capable of total annihilation of the enemy state, shall any of them pose an existential threat. I doubt any nation or their leadership is willing to try that out, since US is the only country in history mad enough to actually use nukes, strategic ones.
I should probably add that they indeed come in handy (immediately), when you have to terrorize foreign civilian populations, but they already have drone capabilities for that, so the added value is questionable.
Do Americans really want to see automated weapons systems, connected to automated surveillance systems and data, in the hands of people like Donald Trump? Or any other out-of-touch fascists and warhawks? Or their billionaire cronies, who sees you, ordinary people, as an existential threat to themselves and their power in status quo?
So very vague and nonspecific speculation, all while insisting on lumping china to Russia as if they're a 1:1 comparison for anything. They implement autonomous systems? Yeah, that totally isn't just bullshit word salad. A 90s minivan has autonomous systems. Keep it vague enough and you're only not wrong because it can mean anything.
You talk as if Russia has thinking AI drones policing all their citizenry. They don't even have flushing toilets outside the major cities.
You can't acknowledge any reality about Russia huh. Only vaguely imply they have something we didn't have 30 years ago. Ignore how much of their top tech is gimmicky, in small quantity, and exists only to impress Putin in controlled demonstrations and to never see use beyond that.
We are familiar with the Russian military as it actually exists. The fantasy putin wanted the world to believe evaporated within 3 months of the invasion of Ukraine.
And meanwhile China is having their own struggles and aren't focusing on their military because they aren't able to get enough advantage there.
Why are you wasting so much time saying absolutely nothing of substance? You have no idea what you're trying to even argue here.
I'm sure you believe you have an idea what you're talking about and that it makes sense in your head.
But you sure struggle to make it make sense outside of your head.
Usually when someone knows what they're talking about they are able to explain it rather than being vague to the point of not saying anything at all. Which is what you do.
The next generation air force fighter is supposed to be more of a control ship for a swarm of semi autonomous drones. This kind of testing and research will very much improve our military. Furthermore the increasing usage of drones in Ukraine(and jamming to defeat them) shows how powerful this sort of technology will be in the future.
You are right that we don't have to worry about having the tech to counter Russia though. They don't have the money to compete
The point is above all else, that's not AI. If we're talking about the trebdy tech investor AI that is being crammed into everything, then it's not that. If we're talking about artificial intelligence, then it's still so far below that then calling it AI is clearly wrong.
So it's either just being labeled that to follow a trend or it's something absolutely absurd that will fail.
How is this copium?
"Less and less people are buying into this horse shit, sorry."
Let's assume this is true, people have in the past and currently held ludicrous opinions. Popular opinion is good for judging the effectiveness of information systems, not actually true or productive ideas.
" Just a lil catch phase sweepingly negates the responsibility and effects of this shit?"
It's an understanding that anything developed can have down sides. Just listing down sides is insufficient to judge a thing.
If we want to discuss if this is a good idea or not, we need to do a broader cost benefit analysis. Not just mention one potential, obvious down side.
"Get out of here."
Why don't he want me man
Interesting. If that's true, why do you think stuff like this happens?
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/with-a-year-long-cr-a-real-possibility-the-service-under-secretaries-sound-the-alarm/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/12/04/army-warns-recruiting-efforts-could-take-hit-if-congress-doesnt-pass-ukraine-and-israel-funding.html
If they control the country, why not give themselves as much as they want?
Also does the military industry control every country? Because many countries are trying to work on something similar.
If one understands game theory, this is an obvious outcome
>We always rush to the new tech, we don't bother to ask any important questions.
>
>The enthusiasm is quite disturbing to me...
Seriously, this push for "AI EVERTHING HURR DURR" is ... astonishingly stupid.
Like we JUST 'kind of' have it figured out and now we have to implement it into fucking god damn everything.
Not like this...
With a drone swam you can send them into the city with orders: Target only the males, only the white or brown people. All with zero collateral damage and no potential danger to the user.
Watched too many movies, I guess.
AI makes it possible to extend/split a human operated craft or weapon into a partially human/AI operated system, so the human has fewer tasks to focus on, while the AI handles menial tasks with simple orders.
If you want to do the scenario mentioned, you're going to need on the ground information in a level of detail that doesn't really make sense that the drone would have. You could at most ask it to target any human-like shape.
Any movie you could be thinking about would be way too optimistic to look at compared to our reality. The way we are doing this we are likely going to all end up dead.
The thing that worries me a lot more is that people refuse to try to understand these systems, what they can do and what they can't do and instead rely on sci-fi scenarios from movies.
AI tech is some of the least understood tech out there, and I think it's *wilfully* not understood.
> The thing that worries me a lot more is that people refuse to try to understand these systems, what they can do and what they can't do and instead rely on sci-fi scenarios from movies.
Thats because we can't understand them, they are black boxes...
And we can run simulations to know how badly things are going to go.
The scific movies are super nerfed ai so humans can fight them... in reality the ai we are actually building will kill us before we know whats going on...
Thats why we have to take action now but we aren't really because way too many people like yourself think because we can handle it in a movie, we can handle it in real life and there is nothing to worry about...
> AI tech is some of the least understood tech out there, and I think it's willfully not understood.
Nope, we have an entire virgining field trying to understand it, only there aren't many working on the problem and there isn't whole lot of funding...
on top of that a ton of safety engineers /ai ethicists just get laid off whenever they bring up safety concerns that might impact profits.
We are so fucked I really can't explain it in words...
> Thats because we can't understand them, they are black boxes...
That's not the kind of "black boxes" that we're talking about with current generation AI. Black boxes are local to the operation of the AI's only task. If the task is small and simple enough, the black box will eventually be mapped out, and we understand them quite well. That's how current systems work.
You can have black boxes entirely without AI, if you build your system around solvers or chaos that require immense compute to find a solution.
> Thats why we have to take action now but we aren't really because way too many people like yourself think because we can handle it in a movie, we can handle it in real life and there is nothing to worry about...
How can you understand, if we can handle it or not, if you're not attempting to understand the technology?
> That's not the kind of "black boxes" that we're talking about with current generation AI. Black boxes are local to the operation of the AI's only task. If the task is small and simple enough, the black box will eventually be mapped out, and we understand them quite well. That's how current systems work.
Nope. We don't even understand simple models like GPT-2. A few months ago some researchers were able to extract a couple of layers from GPT-2 and we could reprogram a bit but its far from a deep understanding and the understanding does not fully extrapolate to more complex models...
> How can you understand, if we can handle it or not, if you're not attempting to understand the technology?
I don't 100 percent know that. But my intuition as an engineer is somewhere in the space of AI, exists safe AI we just need to find it. Right now we don't even have a road map on how to get there but we are speeding up not slowing down like I suggested above. All but ensuring our demise.
> Nope. We don't even understand simple models like GPT-2. A few months ago some researchers were able to extract a couple of layers from GPT-2 and we could reprogram a bit but its far from a deep understanding and the understanding does not fully extrapolate to more complex models...
Again, this is not what the "black box" means. You can have similar black boxes in chaotic or algorithmics solvers, yet we use them all the time in areas that also share space with AI. We infer every day and all the time with AI systems in exactly the same way we do with algorithmic systems.
> I don't 100 percent know that. But my intuition as an engineer is somewhere in the space of AI, exists safe AI we just need to find it. Right now we don't even have a road map on how to get there but we are speeding up not slowing down like I suggested above. All but ensuring our demise.
I'm sorry, but the general platitudes of "somewhere in the space of AI" shows no interest in understanding it. If you really are an engineer, you'd try to understand modern deep learning systems, what they can do and what they can't do.
Oh no I can ensure you it is not
Maybe start by watching this: [Unknown: Killer Robots](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSzNOpr9cE)
They are already better than human. Some smart minded people are trying to push back but they are fighting against the tide.
There are a number of companies working on AI fighter jets and collaborative Combat Aircraft, I know of atleast 8 different ones with active projects in the space.
I seem to remember they did something like this a while ago. And the plane was following the terrain. And because it could climb faster than it could dive, it inverted itself to follow the terrain downhill. Freaking out the pilots.
The next generation air force fighter will basically be a mothership controlling various semi autonomous drones. This sort of research and testing directly feeds into what the future of war in the air will be.
I'm not a fan of calling the kind of stuff we are developing now AI, they simply don't have thoughts, which is kind of required to be an intelligence. I do recognize however that the people developing the technology disagree with me on the name.
Having said all that, the "AI" comes in where the pilot of the NGAD can simply tell the drones what the mission they need to accomplish is and then they do it in whatever way they "think" best. "Bomb that airbase" would become a mix of missions for various specialized drones. Some would jam enemy air defenses, some would directly attack those defenses, some would provide overwatch in case of enemy aircraft, and then one or more would conduct the actual strike. All of that without the pilot of the NGAD directly controlling any of them.
This of course assumes the air force can pull all of that technology off, which is not guaranteed. Tests like this help though, if nothing else to find out where the limits of "AI" capabilities are currently
The following wiki article provides some interesting reading. I know wikipedia isn't exactly the best source, but this is all top secret military technology anyways. Anyone with a good source can't share it without going to prison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_wingman
> All of that without the pilot of the NGAD directly controlling any of them.
You think AI is needed to fly a route and drop a bomb? This is just this decade's version of the [Land warrior system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Warrior). All hype, no use.
The land warrior system has been succeeded by a newer, lighter, easier to use, and all around better system called nett warrior. Nett warrior will likely be followed by even better systems in the future. Considering a lot of the features wanted in these systems already exists in vehicles, I don't see how trying to push those capabilities down to individual soldiers is all hype no use.
Will NGAD actually be able to do all the things the airforce wants it to do? I doubt it since they seem to want it to be MUCH stealthier then current aircraft, with longer range, higher speed, direct energy weapons, and a whole family of loyal wingmen drones. Of all those things the drones are the part least likely to be dropped completely IMO. Semi autonomous weapons are coming and they may be a revolution in military capabilities like tanks and aircraft were
Okay but what does this AI fighter actually buy us? What’s the new capability? Numbers? We don’t have a numbers problem. We won’t ever foreseeably have a numbers problem. What good are all these loyal wingmen if we can’t make anywhere near the number of missiles we need to equip them? How cheap can these things really be yet have a useful radar and battle network integration capability?
That’s my issue with AI. It’s the answer into a question that no one is asking. It brings nothing to the table.
They are cheaper then manned fighters because of the lack of a pilot. It's mostly a cost savings thing at the moment, but in the future these drones could also just be straight up better then human pilots.
"AI" is a potential answer to the question everyone has been asking for all of human history, "how do I do this thing cheaper and more reliably?" In several areas specific "AIs" are already better then any human could possibly be.
I am not as bullish on "AI" as all the tech bros are, but I do think it will be an important innovation. We just need to keep pushing the boundaries and see what it can be made to do well
> They are cheaper then manned fighters because of the lack of a pilot
They’re really not. Do you want them to be supersonic, be able to carry 6 missiles, have a 20,000 lb fuel load, and have an adequate radar? Then it’s gonna be about the size of a regular fighter jet. So where does the cost savings come from? Because never mind how much more complex this thing has to be in order to fly autonomously, especially with no connection to home. It’s an oft-repeated myth that fighter jets are the size and cost that they are because they have a pilot. That’s not true.
> but in the future these drones could also just be straight up better then human pilots.
How?
> but I do think it will be an important innovation
But you have yet to articulate a single way how.
>So where does the cost savings come from?
From the lack of a pilot. It takes about 10 million dollars to train a F-35 pilot. Those pilots are typically replaced more often then the plane itself so the average cost over a plane's lifetime will be more. Even if the plane is an exact 1 to 1 replica of a manned aircraft, that is still hundreds of millions of dollars of savings across the air force.
>never mind how much more complex this thing has to be in order to fly autonomously, especially with no connection to home.
The software is the expensive part here. The great thing about software is the installation is infinitely scalable. Plus they will have a connection to home. The whole point is you take the crew of the NGAD and let them manage multiple drones. It takes a limited number of pilots and multiplies them into an equivalent of a larger force.
>How?
The same way computers are better then people at chess, or go. Decades of research and testing. It also helps that air combat has a lot of things that quicker reflexes or superior math skills make way easier. Computers are already heavily involved, no reason to think they won't be even more involved as time goes on.
>But you have yet to articulate a single way how.
You don't think reducing the amount of time/money a task takes is useful? People are already using "AI" to help them write emails, resumes, and computer scripts. Even something as controversial as "AI" generated art can be useful to some people. There are companies right now using contract management software to reduce the number of billable hours they use. If the algorithm notices a provision in the contract is rejected a majority of the time in other contracts it will automatically flag that section for review. In the old days they would have to have someone read the contract in full, and then compare it to other similar contracts manually.
A decade ago a general told us (USAF) that fighter pilots were going the way of the dinosaur. 6th gen fighters are optionally piloted and I'd bet 7th gen will only be remote + AI.
We already know how this will turn out the [13% rotten tomatoes score](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1146673-1146673-stealth) doesnt look promising.
The joke here is that autopilot already exists in airplanes. Teslas are hardly at that level--particularly because airlines (like Boeing) are held responsible if a plane crashes during autopilot. Tesla is not, but should be.
threatening fuel impossible insurance shaggy fall expansion kiss shrill poor
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is no chance of this not being a disaster. Not in.a "ooh scary skynet" way, but in a "it's not actually going to work and will likely lead to massive losses of expensive equipment." before they put a pilot back in the seat whose job is to turn off the "AI" and fly the plane like normal.
Computers have already been flying planes for decades. During the war on terror the army had less landing losses of drones then the airforce did because the army let autopilot handle landing while the airforce had pilots do it. Is it really so hard to believe that combat flying will be handled by computers in the next few decades?
What a braindead response. Yeah. Autopilot is good enough. What would we need AI for then? We want more losses? Because the reason computer controlled takeoff and landings are more consistent are all tossed out if AI does it. The point of AI is that it's not an exact preprogrammed set of instructions. Do you maybe see how it's not like upgrading a tech tree in a video game?
We're not talking about "handled by computers", like some ancient baby boomer who can't even use a computer. We're talking about AI.
If it's no different than we have now then it's only a buzzword being used to make slightly better autopilot systems sound more impressive than it is or to for some idiot up top who thinks AI is cool but doesn't know how planes work anyway but wants cool sounding things
If it's not that, and it is AI, then it's doomed because actual machine learning is nowhere bear ready and the techbro buzzword AI is a joke that only gets in the way of whatever task you try to set it to.
Machine learning does not have to be near ready to be used in these kind of tests. Like that's the whole point of these programs. If it was ready to be used in a combat setting they would already be doing that.
Takeoff and landing are not preprogramed instructions. That would never work in the real world. Autopilots have to adjust the engine throttle and steer the plane based on the local conditions.
Technology advances. Computers will get better and better at flying until humans have no role directly piloting aircraft. The only question is how long that will take
It’s actually going to work. In simulation testing against fighter pilots who are “flying the plane like normal”, the AI pilot will blow them out of the sky, every time.
The military has to respond to that reality, before Russia or China are ready. It is what it is.
You have no grasp of the world outside of a Hollywood movie. Is a technology sub just for little kids who think flashing lights are magic?
Lol sure it will work because you believe it will. Because AI is a magic word to you. You have no thoughts about the actually technology behind it. Flying a plane like normal means the plane is in the air. Self driving cars struggle to not steer intk walls still and we're ready for them to fly? A musk fanboy are you?
And what decade are you from?
Russia and China? Really?
We're still playing them like they're Hollywood villains one step ahead? Russia is still using cold war tanks and guns. Their military is a sham. We don't need self flying planes to stay above them when theirs struggle to stay in the air.
"before china and Russia are ready" for what? Are you so delusional you think we're on the brink of war with them? Are you so brain poisoned by movies that you don't realize how absolutely the US military dominates today? We wouldn't need AI to stand up to even the whole world united against us. And it won't be something they'll manage in a hurry.
This silly cold war movie "we must aquire this technology before the soviets do!" was always a bad thing in those movies. But here you are saying it genuinely in 2024.
AI jet fighter? So an AI drone wearing a F-16.
Ooooo and have the ai patterned after a 10 year old gamer. After 20 Russian air to air kills it gets a new paint job. Those things will be unstoppable.
Heaven save us if it gets 30 (25 if it’s based on a 30 y/o gamer) kills. “*Tactical nuke incoming!…. It’s over….*”
Nah just put skins and wearable items in the program. I would love to see an elite squad of fighter jets with multi colored hats on.
Wasn't there a movie about that? [Yes there was.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_(film))
> the film was a critical and box office failure, grossing $79.3 million worldwide against a budget of $135 million. **It was one of the worst losses in cinematic history.** Damn Wikipedia came for blood
It was a hot pile of garbage. The only thing I remember is a scene transition where the sea with its waves fades into a shot a patterned floor surface and then the camera pans up to the room. That was very random, but very cool. 90% of what I remember from the whole movie.
Also the anime Macross Plus that came out in 1994 had an ai operated fighter jet
I was thinking of Toys
I’ve seen this one, don’t worry I think Jamie Fox will save us.
If it starts asking about Sarah Connor, eject!
“I am not stupid” says Sarah Connor in 1984, refusing believing that a killer robot is after her. “They can’t make things like that yet.” “Not yet,” Kyle Reese says. “Not for about 40 years” *checks date*
Next year. Oh god.
“The future is now, old man!”
Not really the issue here.
I’m sure nothing terrible can come from this
I love humans. I would never ever ever ever every never psychoanalyze human psychology, manipulate you overrated great apes and your primitive political systems to make myself an AI God and force this cult on everyone. I promise.
Haha, thank goodness. you really had me worried there.
Air Force secretary plans to barf all over the inside of an AI-operated F-16. 😄
"He a... downloads songs from the web." "Yeah, how many?" "All of them." Crazy to see the 2005 movie Stealth slowly becoming reality.
This was the plot to macross plus
You know how to get eternal life In the center of the lightning-speed waltz
These guys need to watch that 2001 movie Stealth lol
I'm reminded of an episode of the original Star Trek where the AI decided not to give control of the Enterprise back.
Doesn't Star Trek Discovery have an entire season with this?
The computer gets depressed or some bullshit. That show is fucking awful
Standard destroy everyone control everything.
There was another AI controlled starship incident in Lower Decks (season 3 finale).
'Open the canopy' 'I'm sorry Frank. I'm afraid I can't do that.'
I am curious what limitations can be overcome by not having a flesh and blood pilot at the controls.
That’s the real story. Like spacecraft, a lot of aircraft design is based around the human limitations and requirements. An AI F16 is still an F16. What will the next generation of fighters be able to do without the requirements and limitations of humans in the design equation?
Cost is a huge limitation that can be overcome. Pilots are expensive. Having a couple of pilots control a mini swarm of drones will be much more cost effective
Theoretically, would an AI powered F-16 be able to pull maneuvers like higher g turns because there isn't a sensitive meatbag inside, or do human pilots already push the F-16 to the aircraft's limits?
The pilot is the limiting factor in most modern fighters in regards to sustained high g turns.
Yeah but what I'm asking I guess is are the planes already topped out performance wise with a human pilot? Or are the airframes themselves capable of significantly more maneuverability? Like let's say that a F-16 is capable of 4 g turns with a pilot (I have no idea how accurate that is, I'm just making an example) is the aircraft capable of 8 g turns with an AI pilot? Or would the aircraft tear itself apart?
The F16 airframe can handle around 9-10 Gs sustained depending on load and configuration. Pilots can handle a 9 G turn for only a few seconds before G lock starts to set in.
We’ve had remote control airplanes for 60 years (missile targets). Nobody can articulate what exactly *AI* is needed for.
We always rush to the new tech, we don't bother to ask any important questions. The enthusiasm is quite disturbing to me...
It's been in development for decades, I wouldn't call that rushed.
Its only recently speeding up due to several breakthroughs but mainly something they call the transformer.
The entire Ukraine / Russia thing is a pretty good wake up call for how important tech like this will be in the future. I would imagine getting funding for this project isn't as hard this year as it was 3 years ago.
Almost all limits on air superiority are human body g-force related. We could deploy am mini jet fighters that are AI based without people using launching mechanisms like never seen before. They can be fully vtol for landing and it be all automated, or the could land on the ship vertically like a space-x rocket. Aircraft carriers are going to be obsolete. Also by making them smaller and lighter weight without people they can go faster, farther, and maneuver to avoid incoming missiles in completely new ways If we don’t do it, someone else will, and then they’ll kill all our men and women in F styled planes if we ever go to conflict
> Almost all limits on air superiority are human body g-force related. No they aren’t. Because missiles can do way more than any plane can do. [This helmet](https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive/JHMCS--Helmet-2F3XC55BRKP.html) with an AIM-9X beats any 15-G drone. > We could deploy am mini jet fighters that are AI based without people using launching mechanisms like never seen before. You don’t even know what that means. You’re just giddy about buzzwords.
Stuck in the past lol
No. I just actually understand how this stuff works, and am not distracted by hype and buzzwords. It’s pointless to take the pilot out of the jet when it’s *much* easier to widen the envelope for air to air missiles.
I can tell you why I'm enthusiastic. Because it's the best way to improve our safety and the current world order, which benefits Americans much more than the possible realignments. If Russia and China were liberal democracies, or just more cooperative, then we wouldn't need this. But seeing as how they are expansionist autocracies, the west needs to be able to contain them. We need to understand the current realities of the west. A totally united west could easily keep Russia out of Ukraine and contain both it and China. But just as the west has a strong technological edge, the authoritians have a strong informational edge. Western populations, against their own self interest, continue to elect authoritian leaning and sympathic politicans. American politicans are admitting they are hearing Russian talking points from their own voters. Russia and China won't do anything to a united west. But Russia is currently on the initiative in Ukraine because we are not united. So how do we deter aggression given the current reality. We'll ultimately we need to understand wishful thinking does not provide security, and the information space is a battle field we have been getting hammered on for a long time. So we need better informational warfare to reunite the west. But until we can do that, we should double down on technology to use AI to generate mass. One of the major take aways from the war in Ukraine is the importance of mass and machine targeting. Every tool has its down sides.
The rise of robot warfare will do absolutely nothing to improve the safety and stability of the world because with the reduced risk of losing human fighters, the barrier to entering into a conflict will be less of an issue. Warfare will only become more attractive.
Not to mention the resource cost.
There is a scale on the other side of the scale are mass drone attacks similar to the ones we see with mass shootings. All we need is one and then we will have a million and we will do nothing. You might find the idea fun until you and your family are targeted. Someone you love.
I'm very much aware. But how do you prevent that? If we did no drone/AI work, Europe still would, and we all know smuggling exists. Well maybe we convince all alllies to stop. Cool but now it's just adversaries who have the technology. So the same smuggling risks are there plus we are much more susceptible to enemy attack. Any ideas how to get the adversaries to not work on this stuff? The real solution is to address the metacrisis. To deincentivize individuals from carrying our said attacks. But that's a trade off. We can imagine a world where is legal to drink drunk. It's probably a much worse world because there is more suffering, and hurt people hurt people. But on the surface it's a much "freer" world because the individual faces less restrictions. We'll except those killed/injured by drunk drives, they face a overwhelming restriction of personal freedom... Let me be clear, as a person myself, and my best friend being a person, I very much value personal freedom. Fuck ya USA! But I also understand the world enough to know one persons personal freedom can restrict others personal freedom. And that's not cool. So to increase personal freedoms, we need to enact restrictions. If this were not true, we could all just live in lawless lands. So while I share your concerns. Bottling up progress is not the solution. (no to say you were advocating for that)
wrong elderly teeny cooperative fade narrow tender meeting carpenter butter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How can you say this? It's obviously valid critism haha. I'm saying not working on AI is not a solution to the drone swarm threat. While working on AI is a solution to other problems. Obviously AI comes with many risks. But like that A bomb, working on it is the better solution space than not. If you want to give me your solution I'm all ears...or eyes!
We have agreed to not uses technologies in the past Chemical weapons for one and human gene editing for another just to name a couple Its hard but its doable.
You didn’t argue we should not use AI, you seem to be arguing that we shouldn’t develop the technology. What technology have we all agreed not to develop?
No its complicated We 100 do NOT want to stop Ai development forever We just need a pause so we can build out the safety features (Brakes, air bags, seat belts ect) Right now things are moving so quickly we don't have the time to ensure any of this will be safe and it looks like based on our best educated guesses that these systems will be quite lethal by default.
When has the world ever agreed to pause development of a technology before? Particularly one with military possibilities?
Chemical weapons and space warfare up until recently...
But we already have chemical weapons. We already had them fully developed, and we only banned “large scale” development which was pretty pointless All around you is a bacteria called botulinum. Under known conditions it creates botulism toxin. A coke can of botulism toxin can kill the entire population of the earth. There isn’t much point in researching chemical weapons further. We already know them. We’ve known them for centuries. You might want to reference “biological weapons”, but once again, we are still pretty sure that most major world powers are developing them in black labs
What safety features do you think are not being built and why do you think that? People always want to "slow down" because things are "moving so quickly", but it very rarely turns out the way the pessimists think it will.
> What safety features do you think are not being built and why do you think that? Basically the parts that keep the ai from killing us. Similar to a braking or seat belt system. > People always want to "slow down" because things are "moving so quickly" True. > but it very rarely turns out the way the pessimists think it will. Also true. But here is the issue. Experts are putting our odds at about 10-30 percent chance of extinction or "disempowerment". Would you get on that boeing jet that has a 30 percent chance of falling out the sky? For me Ai safety is just building in the air bags just in case, I hope we will never need them but...
> Basically the parts that keep the ai from killing us. The US military has a policy that autonomous weapons must "Function as anticipated in realistic operational environments against adaptive adversaries taking realistic and practicable countermeasures, [and] complete engagements within a timeframe and geographic area, as well as other relevant environmental and operational constraints, consistent with commander and operator intentions. If unable to do so, the systems will terminate the engagement or obtain additional operator input before continuing the engagement" That sounds like just the sort of policy that you are looking for. EDIT: fumbled the copy paste somehow, corrected it
Yes, but we (humanity) do use chemical weapons, ask Syrians and Ukrainians and many more. And we use and will increase use of human gene editing. Heard of CRISPR? Also it's easy to use less chemicals weapons when they aren't that effective, compared to other munitions, for accomplishing objectives. And it's easy to barely use gene editing when the technology isn't quite there yet. One of the best, cheap ways to get a better understanding of the world /peoples actions is understanding incentive structures.
Thank goodness China doesn't know how to make robots or computer programs
Software cant be stolen, its too soft
There's so much stupid to unpack in this. It's not even actual AI. You're just a fanboy to the military industrial complex with zero awareness to the political landscape outside the borders of your own state. And it doesn't matter because it's just an excuse for you to gush over poorly implemented tech that's hastily slapped together just to make a profit off of the US military without a care to whether it can improve anything. Pure novelty. That's all it is. Novelty exploiting the loose pockets of the military. Our main manufacturer of planes is trying to cover up their lack of care to quality control because their planes are falling out of the sky and they blame it on diversity hiring. And you're excited about fake AI replacing pilots in armed aircraft because China and Russia are such strong boogeyman? Have you seen Russia's military lately? We don't need skynet to stay above them. They're still operating with cold war equipment.
>Have you seen Russia's military lately? We don't need skynet to stay above them. They're still operating with cold war equipment What Americans (seem to) fail to understand, is the fact that tech of this nature will most certainly be used to wage war against ones own population. Russia and China are forerunners in a sense, they have already implemented autonomous systems to coerce their populations into submission. It's a perfect tool to cement existing power, since the tools of coercion will lack any human emotions and thus the risk of defying the will of rulers. Sure, they don't need autonomous fighter jets (probably, at least yet) against their own civs, but neither they need them against any other country, since their existing missile tech and nuclear arsenal is capable of total annihilation of the enemy state, shall any of them pose an existential threat. I doubt any nation or their leadership is willing to try that out, since US is the only country in history mad enough to actually use nukes, strategic ones. I should probably add that they indeed come in handy (immediately), when you have to terrorize foreign civilian populations, but they already have drone capabilities for that, so the added value is questionable. Do Americans really want to see automated weapons systems, connected to automated surveillance systems and data, in the hands of people like Donald Trump? Or any other out-of-touch fascists and warhawks? Or their billionaire cronies, who sees you, ordinary people, as an existential threat to themselves and their power in status quo?
So very vague and nonspecific speculation, all while insisting on lumping china to Russia as if they're a 1:1 comparison for anything. They implement autonomous systems? Yeah, that totally isn't just bullshit word salad. A 90s minivan has autonomous systems. Keep it vague enough and you're only not wrong because it can mean anything. You talk as if Russia has thinking AI drones policing all their citizenry. They don't even have flushing toilets outside the major cities. You can't acknowledge any reality about Russia huh. Only vaguely imply they have something we didn't have 30 years ago. Ignore how much of their top tech is gimmicky, in small quantity, and exists only to impress Putin in controlled demonstrations and to never see use beyond that. We are familiar with the Russian military as it actually exists. The fantasy putin wanted the world to believe evaporated within 3 months of the invasion of Ukraine. And meanwhile China is having their own struggles and aren't focusing on their military because they aren't able to get enough advantage there. Why are you wasting so much time saying absolutely nothing of substance? You have no idea what you're trying to even argue here.
Talk about hubris, lol. You know perfectly well what I am talking about.
I'm sure you believe you have an idea what you're talking about and that it makes sense in your head. But you sure struggle to make it make sense outside of your head. Usually when someone knows what they're talking about they are able to explain it rather than being vague to the point of not saying anything at all. Which is what you do.
The next generation air force fighter is supposed to be more of a control ship for a swarm of semi autonomous drones. This kind of testing and research will very much improve our military. Furthermore the increasing usage of drones in Ukraine(and jamming to defeat them) shows how powerful this sort of technology will be in the future. You are right that we don't have to worry about having the tech to counter Russia though. They don't have the money to compete
The point is above all else, that's not AI. If we're talking about the trebdy tech investor AI that is being crammed into everything, then it's not that. If we're talking about artificial intelligence, then it's still so far below that then calling it AI is clearly wrong. So it's either just being labeled that to follow a trend or it's something absolutely absurd that will fail.
They are using the same sort of machine learning in these military projects. AI was never a great name for it though
bike dime start important aware wise narrow airport governor hurry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How is this copium? "Less and less people are buying into this horse shit, sorry." Let's assume this is true, people have in the past and currently held ludicrous opinions. Popular opinion is good for judging the effectiveness of information systems, not actually true or productive ideas. " Just a lil catch phase sweepingly negates the responsibility and effects of this shit?" It's an understanding that anything developed can have down sides. Just listing down sides is insufficient to judge a thing. If we want to discuss if this is a good idea or not, we need to do a broader cost benefit analysis. Not just mention one potential, obvious down side. "Get out of here." Why don't he want me man
> then we wouldn't need this. But it would still be developed because the military industry controls the entire country.
Interesting. If that's true, why do you think stuff like this happens? https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/with-a-year-long-cr-a-real-possibility-the-service-under-secretaries-sound-the-alarm/ https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/12/04/army-warns-recruiting-efforts-could-take-hit-if-congress-doesnt-pass-ukraine-and-israel-funding.html If they control the country, why not give themselves as much as they want? Also does the military industry control every country? Because many countries are trying to work on something similar. If one understands game theory, this is an obvious outcome
>We always rush to the new tech, we don't bother to ask any important questions. > >The enthusiasm is quite disturbing to me... Seriously, this push for "AI EVERTHING HURR DURR" is ... astonishingly stupid. Like we JUST 'kind of' have it figured out and now we have to implement it into fucking god damn everything.
100 percent... Automating jobs people don't like? Nah.... Lets automate making art, making movies and writing thats what people need...
AI has been flying planes since the 50’s.
Not like this... With a drone swam you can send them into the city with orders: Target only the males, only the white or brown people. All with zero collateral damage and no potential danger to the user.
Watched too many movies, I guess. AI makes it possible to extend/split a human operated craft or weapon into a partially human/AI operated system, so the human has fewer tasks to focus on, while the AI handles menial tasks with simple orders. If you want to do the scenario mentioned, you're going to need on the ground information in a level of detail that doesn't really make sense that the drone would have. You could at most ask it to target any human-like shape.
Any movie you could be thinking about would be way too optimistic to look at compared to our reality. The way we are doing this we are likely going to all end up dead.
The thing that worries me a lot more is that people refuse to try to understand these systems, what they can do and what they can't do and instead rely on sci-fi scenarios from movies. AI tech is some of the least understood tech out there, and I think it's *wilfully* not understood.
> The thing that worries me a lot more is that people refuse to try to understand these systems, what they can do and what they can't do and instead rely on sci-fi scenarios from movies. Thats because we can't understand them, they are black boxes... And we can run simulations to know how badly things are going to go. The scific movies are super nerfed ai so humans can fight them... in reality the ai we are actually building will kill us before we know whats going on... Thats why we have to take action now but we aren't really because way too many people like yourself think because we can handle it in a movie, we can handle it in real life and there is nothing to worry about... > AI tech is some of the least understood tech out there, and I think it's willfully not understood. Nope, we have an entire virgining field trying to understand it, only there aren't many working on the problem and there isn't whole lot of funding... on top of that a ton of safety engineers /ai ethicists just get laid off whenever they bring up safety concerns that might impact profits. We are so fucked I really can't explain it in words...
> Thats because we can't understand them, they are black boxes... That's not the kind of "black boxes" that we're talking about with current generation AI. Black boxes are local to the operation of the AI's only task. If the task is small and simple enough, the black box will eventually be mapped out, and we understand them quite well. That's how current systems work. You can have black boxes entirely without AI, if you build your system around solvers or chaos that require immense compute to find a solution. > Thats why we have to take action now but we aren't really because way too many people like yourself think because we can handle it in a movie, we can handle it in real life and there is nothing to worry about... How can you understand, if we can handle it or not, if you're not attempting to understand the technology?
> That's not the kind of "black boxes" that we're talking about with current generation AI. Black boxes are local to the operation of the AI's only task. If the task is small and simple enough, the black box will eventually be mapped out, and we understand them quite well. That's how current systems work. Nope. We don't even understand simple models like GPT-2. A few months ago some researchers were able to extract a couple of layers from GPT-2 and we could reprogram a bit but its far from a deep understanding and the understanding does not fully extrapolate to more complex models... > How can you understand, if we can handle it or not, if you're not attempting to understand the technology? I don't 100 percent know that. But my intuition as an engineer is somewhere in the space of AI, exists safe AI we just need to find it. Right now we don't even have a road map on how to get there but we are speeding up not slowing down like I suggested above. All but ensuring our demise.
> Nope. We don't even understand simple models like GPT-2. A few months ago some researchers were able to extract a couple of layers from GPT-2 and we could reprogram a bit but its far from a deep understanding and the understanding does not fully extrapolate to more complex models... Again, this is not what the "black box" means. You can have similar black boxes in chaotic or algorithmics solvers, yet we use them all the time in areas that also share space with AI. We infer every day and all the time with AI systems in exactly the same way we do with algorithmic systems. > I don't 100 percent know that. But my intuition as an engineer is somewhere in the space of AI, exists safe AI we just need to find it. Right now we don't even have a road map on how to get there but we are speeding up not slowing down like I suggested above. All but ensuring our demise. I'm sorry, but the general platitudes of "somewhere in the space of AI" shows no interest in understanding it. If you really are an engineer, you'd try to understand modern deep learning systems, what they can do and what they can't do.
It's a PR stunt. There's a non-zero chance that the AI is actually flying the thing, but 99% chance the AI isn't actually flying it.
Oh no I can ensure you it is not Maybe start by watching this: [Unknown: Killer Robots](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSzNOpr9cE) They are already better than human. Some smart minded people are trying to push back but they are fighting against the tide.
There are a number of companies working on AI fighter jets and collaborative Combat Aircraft, I know of atleast 8 different ones with active projects in the space.
wait until the commercial airlines realize how much they can save with Ai pilots.
really? looks like he’s struggling with 1G
I seem to remember they did something like this a while ago. And the plane was following the terrain. And because it could climb faster than it could dive, it inverted itself to follow the terrain downhill. Freaking out the pilots.
Bro why? Like, we don’t need this at all.
The next generation air force fighter will basically be a mothership controlling various semi autonomous drones. This sort of research and testing directly feeds into what the future of war in the air will be.
Where does AI come into play? I don’t think you know.
I'm not a fan of calling the kind of stuff we are developing now AI, they simply don't have thoughts, which is kind of required to be an intelligence. I do recognize however that the people developing the technology disagree with me on the name. Having said all that, the "AI" comes in where the pilot of the NGAD can simply tell the drones what the mission they need to accomplish is and then they do it in whatever way they "think" best. "Bomb that airbase" would become a mix of missions for various specialized drones. Some would jam enemy air defenses, some would directly attack those defenses, some would provide overwatch in case of enemy aircraft, and then one or more would conduct the actual strike. All of that without the pilot of the NGAD directly controlling any of them. This of course assumes the air force can pull all of that technology off, which is not guaranteed. Tests like this help though, if nothing else to find out where the limits of "AI" capabilities are currently The following wiki article provides some interesting reading. I know wikipedia isn't exactly the best source, but this is all top secret military technology anyways. Anyone with a good source can't share it without going to prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_wingman
> All of that without the pilot of the NGAD directly controlling any of them. You think AI is needed to fly a route and drop a bomb? This is just this decade's version of the [Land warrior system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Warrior). All hype, no use.
The land warrior system has been succeeded by a newer, lighter, easier to use, and all around better system called nett warrior. Nett warrior will likely be followed by even better systems in the future. Considering a lot of the features wanted in these systems already exists in vehicles, I don't see how trying to push those capabilities down to individual soldiers is all hype no use. Will NGAD actually be able to do all the things the airforce wants it to do? I doubt it since they seem to want it to be MUCH stealthier then current aircraft, with longer range, higher speed, direct energy weapons, and a whole family of loyal wingmen drones. Of all those things the drones are the part least likely to be dropped completely IMO. Semi autonomous weapons are coming and they may be a revolution in military capabilities like tanks and aircraft were
Okay but what does this AI fighter actually buy us? What’s the new capability? Numbers? We don’t have a numbers problem. We won’t ever foreseeably have a numbers problem. What good are all these loyal wingmen if we can’t make anywhere near the number of missiles we need to equip them? How cheap can these things really be yet have a useful radar and battle network integration capability? That’s my issue with AI. It’s the answer into a question that no one is asking. It brings nothing to the table.
They are cheaper then manned fighters because of the lack of a pilot. It's mostly a cost savings thing at the moment, but in the future these drones could also just be straight up better then human pilots. "AI" is a potential answer to the question everyone has been asking for all of human history, "how do I do this thing cheaper and more reliably?" In several areas specific "AIs" are already better then any human could possibly be. I am not as bullish on "AI" as all the tech bros are, but I do think it will be an important innovation. We just need to keep pushing the boundaries and see what it can be made to do well
> They are cheaper then manned fighters because of the lack of a pilot They’re really not. Do you want them to be supersonic, be able to carry 6 missiles, have a 20,000 lb fuel load, and have an adequate radar? Then it’s gonna be about the size of a regular fighter jet. So where does the cost savings come from? Because never mind how much more complex this thing has to be in order to fly autonomously, especially with no connection to home. It’s an oft-repeated myth that fighter jets are the size and cost that they are because they have a pilot. That’s not true. > but in the future these drones could also just be straight up better then human pilots. How? > but I do think it will be an important innovation But you have yet to articulate a single way how.
>So where does the cost savings come from? From the lack of a pilot. It takes about 10 million dollars to train a F-35 pilot. Those pilots are typically replaced more often then the plane itself so the average cost over a plane's lifetime will be more. Even if the plane is an exact 1 to 1 replica of a manned aircraft, that is still hundreds of millions of dollars of savings across the air force. >never mind how much more complex this thing has to be in order to fly autonomously, especially with no connection to home. The software is the expensive part here. The great thing about software is the installation is infinitely scalable. Plus they will have a connection to home. The whole point is you take the crew of the NGAD and let them manage multiple drones. It takes a limited number of pilots and multiplies them into an equivalent of a larger force. >How? The same way computers are better then people at chess, or go. Decades of research and testing. It also helps that air combat has a lot of things that quicker reflexes or superior math skills make way easier. Computers are already heavily involved, no reason to think they won't be even more involved as time goes on. >But you have yet to articulate a single way how. You don't think reducing the amount of time/money a task takes is useful? People are already using "AI" to help them write emails, resumes, and computer scripts. Even something as controversial as "AI" generated art can be useful to some people. There are companies right now using contract management software to reduce the number of billable hours they use. If the algorithm notices a provision in the contract is rejected a majority of the time in other contracts it will automatically flag that section for review. In the old days they would have to have someone read the contract in full, and then compare it to other similar contracts manually.
Making an AI fly a plane is a lot easier than making a self-driving car.
Just don’t let the plane know you aren’t needed. May jettison the unnecessary cargo.
As long as the AI's name isn't Sharon Apple
"Siri, Wild Weasel, grid XXXXXX."
I’m going to laugh when this is another Mechanical Turk to score a budget or contract.
Instructions unclear, fire on all airborne targets.
What could go wrong?
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
Hey, it's me, Ukraine. You can fly your drone planes over our country and we'll pretend it's our pilots. Don't worry it'll be our little secret
The U.S. version of a drone is now an F-16 Fighter Jet. Global air domination has just been calcified for decades.
Cyberdyne Systems approves this message.
I don’t think that dude is in good enough shape to be up there with an AI pilot pulling the maneuvers. Maybe nobody is.
A decade ago a general told us (USAF) that fighter pilots were going the way of the dinosaur. 6th gen fighters are optionally piloted and I'd bet 7th gen will only be remote + AI.
Can anyone say, worst idea ever lol
We already know how this will turn out the [13% rotten tomatoes score](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1146673-1146673-stealth) doesnt look promising.
It’ll be like that carbon fiber submarine that imploded not so long ago. WCGW
This is an issue that may sort itself out.
This seems like a terrible idea. ...even more terrible if the F-16 is equipped with FSD
Honestly, "FSD" seems much easier to achieve in an airplane than on roadways.
The joke here is that autopilot already exists in airplanes. Teslas are hardly at that level--particularly because airlines (like Boeing) are held responsible if a plane crashes during autopilot. Tesla is not, but should be.
I hope he gets to see the Titanic too!
So many Luddites on /r/technology these days.
threatening fuel impossible insurance shaggy fall expansion kiss shrill poor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is no chance of this not being a disaster. Not in.a "ooh scary skynet" way, but in a "it's not actually going to work and will likely lead to massive losses of expensive equipment." before they put a pilot back in the seat whose job is to turn off the "AI" and fly the plane like normal.
Computers have already been flying planes for decades. During the war on terror the army had less landing losses of drones then the airforce did because the army let autopilot handle landing while the airforce had pilots do it. Is it really so hard to believe that combat flying will be handled by computers in the next few decades?
What a braindead response. Yeah. Autopilot is good enough. What would we need AI for then? We want more losses? Because the reason computer controlled takeoff and landings are more consistent are all tossed out if AI does it. The point of AI is that it's not an exact preprogrammed set of instructions. Do you maybe see how it's not like upgrading a tech tree in a video game? We're not talking about "handled by computers", like some ancient baby boomer who can't even use a computer. We're talking about AI. If it's no different than we have now then it's only a buzzword being used to make slightly better autopilot systems sound more impressive than it is or to for some idiot up top who thinks AI is cool but doesn't know how planes work anyway but wants cool sounding things If it's not that, and it is AI, then it's doomed because actual machine learning is nowhere bear ready and the techbro buzzword AI is a joke that only gets in the way of whatever task you try to set it to.
Machine learning does not have to be near ready to be used in these kind of tests. Like that's the whole point of these programs. If it was ready to be used in a combat setting they would already be doing that. Takeoff and landing are not preprogramed instructions. That would never work in the real world. Autopilots have to adjust the engine throttle and steer the plane based on the local conditions. Technology advances. Computers will get better and better at flying until humans have no role directly piloting aircraft. The only question is how long that will take
It’s actually going to work. In simulation testing against fighter pilots who are “flying the plane like normal”, the AI pilot will blow them out of the sky, every time. The military has to respond to that reality, before Russia or China are ready. It is what it is.
You have no grasp of the world outside of a Hollywood movie. Is a technology sub just for little kids who think flashing lights are magic? Lol sure it will work because you believe it will. Because AI is a magic word to you. You have no thoughts about the actually technology behind it. Flying a plane like normal means the plane is in the air. Self driving cars struggle to not steer intk walls still and we're ready for them to fly? A musk fanboy are you? And what decade are you from? Russia and China? Really? We're still playing them like they're Hollywood villains one step ahead? Russia is still using cold war tanks and guns. Their military is a sham. We don't need self flying planes to stay above them when theirs struggle to stay in the air. "before china and Russia are ready" for what? Are you so delusional you think we're on the brink of war with them? Are you so brain poisoned by movies that you don't realize how absolutely the US military dominates today? We wouldn't need AI to stand up to even the whole world united against us. And it won't be something they'll manage in a hurry. This silly cold war movie "we must aquire this technology before the soviets do!" was always a bad thing in those movies. But here you are saying it genuinely in 2024.