Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

darpa.mil

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 357 posts

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#191

Post by janalsncm »

Legend2440 wrote: post #181
ACCount37 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's straight up a lie. In all situations where autopilot was disengaged shortly before a crash, the autopilot is implicated in the crash. Both by Tesla's own standards and by NHTSA standards. And yet, people who really should know better repeat this as gospel.

Tesla is such a politically-charged brand at this point that none of these discussions are in good faith. It's all fanboys vs haters. The lidar vs cameras arguments are good example of this. This is a technical engineering question that could go either way - maybe cameras are good enough, maybe you need lidar, nobody on the internet is really in a position to judge. But Tesla did it with cameras, and everybody else i…

> nobody on the internet is really in a position to judge

We don’t need to adjudicate the theoretical question of whether some vision-only system can meet the performance of vision + other modalities. Tesla FSD is not a research experiment. It is a real product which can really kill people. And the relevant fact is that it is less safe than Waymos.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#192

Post by derektank »

greenlemontea wrote: post #176
chasd00 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the first Iraq war, they went in and won. In the second one, it took years to sort of occupy the country. The scope of the first Iraq war was to force them out of Kuwait. That is very different then the invasion of 2003. If you just think about it this should be obvious.

Braindead take. The scope is always narrow up front whether it's "15 days to open the strait" or "15 days to slow the spread" - not all of us fall for that.

>The scope is always narrow up front

The scope of the second Iraq war was not narrow, it was regime change. At the beginning of the war the George W. Bush administration explicitly demanded that both Saddam and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours.

By comparison, the only demands made upon Iraq during the first gulf war was that they withdraw from Kuwait and rescind their declaration of annexation.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#194

Post by bigyabai »

yellow_lead wrote: post #119
SoftTalker wrote: post #22

> The kit utilizes a novel interface with the aircraft’s flight controls and mission systems, allowing a pilot to toggle between traditional human control and AI control with the flip of a switch. This ensures a safe, reliable environment for human-on-the-loop experimentation. How, exactly, does that ensure a safe reliable environment? Humans are pretty bad at suddenly taking over when an automatic system reaches its…

The Tesla method! Disengage shortly before a crash. Now the human is responsible for it.

The F-16 actually has the opposite, with Auto GCAS: https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article8.html

It's an interesting system, and does beg the question of how much autonomy should be forfeit if a human pilot is unresponsive or otherwise disabled.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#195

Post by GolfPopper »

nostrademons wrote: post #154
asdfman123 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Updated to reflect modern realities: > In a panic, they try to pull the plug. Skynet lobbyists descend upon Washington. Skynet is reinstated, and later the US declares a new war in the middle east. The Skynet stock rallies.

> The Skynet stock rallies. Interestingly, a lot of people are looking at LLMs or automated drones as "AI", but I think that capitalism is a better contender. It's a self-healing, self-organizing system that has its own logic and seems to have escaped the desires of its human creators. It treats individual firms as the cells within it, individual humans as its DNA molecules, and it even has a form of tissue different…

SF author Charlie Stross delved into this a few years ago:

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-yo...

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#196

Post by nunez »

SoftTalker wrote: post #22

> The kit utilizes a novel interface with the aircraft’s flight controls and mission systems, allowing a pilot to toggle between traditional human control and AI control with the flip of a switch. This ensures a safe, reliable environment for human-on-the-loop experimentation. How, exactly, does that ensure a safe reliable environment? Humans are pretty bad at suddenly taking over when an automatic system reaches its…

F-16's CFIT reminds me of Boeing's Controlled Impact Demo in the 80s out of Edwards AFB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstratio...

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#197

Post by robocat »

smackeyacky wrote: post #158
XorNot wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No aircraft which can fulfill the CCA type role is going to be "disposable". All the systems in that performance bracket are in the 20-40 million range minimum. The most persistent thing misunderstanding about drones is people imagining that a supersonic capable stealth airframe is going to be really cheap just because it doesn't have a pilot.

Still, the F16 is 16 hours of maintenance per hour of flight or something close to that. Which probably isn’t terrible compared to other aircraft but doesn’t seem sensible for something without aircrew

To make it safe for the pilot plus anyone in the flight path.

Could the hours of maintenance be dropped significantly in wartime: if you don't care about catastrophic failure modes over a foreign country?

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#198

Post by vitalyan8184 »

a34729t wrote: post #98
bobthebob wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh what a great CIA campaign that would be to give the impression that U.S. military isn’t up to par - to motivate and trick our enemies into making stupid moves while we keep our true cards hidden. Such a crazy thought.

You say that, but that's literally a Russian conspiracy theory with Ukraine: The US baited Russia into thinking the US was weak because of Afghanistan, and then Russia got all ballsy and walked into Ukraine and it was a trap.

[dead]

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#199

Post by ghaff »

ozim wrote: post #189
nostrademons wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Skynet stock rallies. Interestingly, a lot of people are looking at LLMs or automated drones as "AI", but I think that capitalism is a better contender. It's a self-healing, self-organizing system that has its own logic and seems to have escaped the desires of its human creators. It treats individual firms as the cells within it, individual humans as its DNA molecules, and it even has a form of tissue different…

But we already embraced this way of thinking since introduction of „corporate personhood”.

One can disagree about aspects of corporate financing of elections etc. while also accepting that everything doesn't get thrown up in the air if a corporate officer leaves for another company. Corporations are established entities that effectively act as a person for certain purposes--though one is welcome to disagree about the extent of those purposes. I expect most people here wouldn't, for example, be opposed to corporations donating to open source projects or other charitable causes.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#200

Post by angry_octet »

benoau wrote: post #182
1970-01-01 wrote: post #2

All Stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards they fly with a perfect operational record. The Skynet funding bill is passed. The system goes on-line on August 4, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

What they really got wrong, is that there aren't even enough missiles, ammunition or fuel production to defeat a country that has been sanctioned for decades and these bottlenecks would make it trivial for humanity to prevail over AI, it'd be like Futurama "for unknown reasons, a kill limit of 999,999 is hardcoded into killbots...".

Except Skynet has nukes. But what isn't addressed is that radiation is terrible for semiconductors, both in operation and during production.

Basically a nuclear war would end GPU production, GPUs have a 5% annual failure rate, higher with more background radiation, so it would get dumber instead of smarter, until it stopped working or partnered with biological compute (Daleks or The Matrix) or a human faction.

Post reply on HN