11–20 of 97 posts
I assume this "AI" is nothing like the neural networks that have made such great strides recently. A lot of pre-programmed boolean logic.
E.g. Similar to the move from pets to cattle in computing. A jet fighter can very much be considered disposable and swap safety features for additional payloads. The squadron could first coordinate in a pattern far more sophisticated than what humans could achieve, then when the payloads are all deployed fighters revert to a kamikaze mission and crash into nearby infrastructure.
The next war is going to be out of a sci-fi book.
The military always claims they will have a human 'in the loop' to make kill decisions. That promise will go out the window just as soon as other nations arm ai enabled drones with anti air missiles. There's no time for 'human in the loop' when the first to act survives. Thus down the slippery slope we go. In 20 years time we'll probably have aircraft that do figure eights over enemy territory for hours before automa…
The military always claims they will have a human 'in the loop' to make kill decisions. That promise will go out the window just as soon as other nations arm ai enabled drones with anti air missiles. There's no time for 'human in the loop' when the first to act survives. Thus down the slippery slope we go. In 20 years time we'll probably have aircraft that do figure eights over enemy territory for hours before automa…
Ok, so? Less humans die and how are they tactically or strategically different from a precise wmd? I.e.: their implication can deter conflict.
With wmds, there are humans who make the choice at the end of the day. The loss of life scale is not relevant as much since we could make ai powered wmds as well, the fundamental question is "can a computer kill?" And maybe more importantly "who is responsible for it making mistakes? L"
It's the 24/7 always in the air drone bombers with AI that have zero hesitation to murder civilian targets on demand or by "accident".
The military always claims they will have a human 'in the loop' to make kill decisions. That promise will go out the window just as soon as other nations arm ai enabled drones with anti air missiles. There's no time for 'human in the loop' when the first to act survives. Thus down the slippery slope we go. In 20 years time we'll probably have aircraft that do figure eights over enemy territory for hours before automa…
Of course there is. "AI" controlled hardware doesn't care about getting out alive. A human is more likely to have an itchy trigger finger because a mistake means death.
What will be interesting is when we design a fighter that doesn't have to accommodate a person. Its size can likely shrink and its performance envelope can be completely re-thought. E.g. Similar to the move from pets to cattle in computing. A jet fighter can very much be considered disposable and swap safety features for additional payloads. The squadron could first coordinate in a pattern far more sophisticated than…
One of the reasons for it being pilotless is it can fly moves/turns that create G forces no human pilots could stand with their jump suit.
But you know, Taranis has all gone very quiet, slipping out of the public's memory.
What will be interesting is when we design a fighter that doesn't have to accommodate a person. Its size can likely shrink and its performance envelope can be completely re-thought. E.g. Similar to the move from pets to cattle in computing. A jet fighter can very much be considered disposable and swap safety features for additional payloads. The squadron could first coordinate in a pattern far more sophisticated than…