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

221–230 of 357 posts

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

#221

Post by jwally »

testing22321 wrote: post #206
jwally wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1st place my head went. Realistically though, whats worse - this thing going rogue or OpenClaud breaking out of its container and shredding a nation's infrastructure like a platoon of gremlins? Genuine question...

One kills people, one kills 1s and 0s. Sure life will suck for a while without the 1s and 0s that make our life better, but at least it will be life.

I take out your electric grid and blow up water treated facilities and natural gas terminals. Food rots, no water for hospitals, no heat in the dead of winter - arguably the virus does what the Falcon does; but with much higher precision - crippling an enemy.

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

#222

Post by Onavo »

Terr_ wrote: post #218
mrob wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Stable aerodynamics The F-16 is famously the first production aircraft with unstable aerodynamics, to increase maneuverability. It's not flyable without computer assistance. This is standard for all modern fighter jets.

I think we need to start distinguishing between different qualitative grades of "computer assistance" here. The executive decision of "fly north instead of east" is on a different tier than "increase angle of flap more than normal to compensate for under-performing in prior maneuver." In the broadest sense, my car is not drive-able without computer assistance either, because if you burn out the computers the engine w…

But your average Cessna lawnmower engine is perfectly startable without computer assistance.

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

#223

Post by dmix »

angry_octet wrote: post #211
dmix wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but everyone knows you can't eliminate the risk from modern MANPADs even with fancy electronic systems and flares. They are conducting combat flights over a country with thousands of chinese MANPADs, the fact they haven't lost more planes is really a great achievement. The US lost 73 planes in Desert Storm to Iraq and that war only lasted 43 days. By comparison the losses from Iran have been shockingly low and sh…

MANPADS are mostly relevant to helicopters, pretty useless against a jet at altitudes. You need a SHORAD system at the minimum, like a Pantsir, and they have electronic signatures that make them targets. Most of the aircraft losses in Desert Storm were due to CFIT and flying into AAA and low altitude weapons. This was a relic of cold war tactics for penetrating Warsaw Pact defences. Once they started flying higher th…

Fair enough. I read the F-15E that went down was likely a MANPAD because it was flying low at the time and there were spotters. Or it was some clever SHORAD ambush with something they kept hidden.

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

#225

Post by rasz »

ozim wrote: post #135
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.

I think it goes more like: Hello Skynet, we have 1.6T debt to hide as there are no chances to recoup that money and investors are getting really angry at us. Hello, say no more I have a perfect solution for this problem…

>Hello, say no more I have a perfect solution for this problem…

...proceeds to generate copious amounts of pdf anime pr0n.

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

#228

Post by rasz »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #209
XorNot wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which cheap drones? Specifically which systems are currently out-competing F-16s in air to air combat in either trials or combat?

You don't need F-16s at all if you have cheap drones. Why send an expensive plane with a pilot to bomb some country if you can send a drone that costs as little as a basic SUV instead?

Pretty much. Drones that disabled /checks notes ~200 barges and tankers in red/black sea in last two weeks cost about $10mil total.

Cost of all the drones that burned down half of russian Oil infrastructure totals less than couple F-35s.

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

#229

Post by Alpha3031 »

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…

> escaped the desires of its human creators

I wonder if we will ever solve the corporate-superorganism-alignment problem and why the AI alignment people rarely (as far as I can tell anyway, though I admit I'm not in the field) talk about it considering it (complicated multi-human systems) does seem to be about as good as a model organism as we can get before we actually have AI to align.

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

#230

Post by sandworm101 »

laughing_man wrote: post #185
sandworm101 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying is not driving. Things dont happen as quickly. Kids dont step out in front of jets at 30,000 feet. Air is also homogenous. Pavement is not. Whereas a car must turn or die, a jet can generally fly straight and level without issue while problems get solved. An out-of-control car has maybe three seconds before a collision. A jet will generally have over a minute to get back under control. Sure, there are moments.…

Buy the same token, your car's autopilot can't kill you without even hitting something by making a turn that's too sharp.

Neither can a jet. An f16 can only sustain 9g for a few seconds even at full burn. That will not kill anyone. They won't be happy, but they will not be dead.
Post reply on HN