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

301–310 of 357 posts

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

#301

Post by numpad0 »

Mawr wrote: post #242
EvanAnderson wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft. I wonder if the AI control is giving inputs to the same flight controls system a human pilot would, or if it has a lower-level interface that could bypass the control laws in the human-operated system. On one hand you might be interested in the AI coming up with ways to fly the aircraft that the normal control laws don't allow,…

> A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft. Ugh... I... Are you serious? Sure, in some sense AI is a computer and the fancy state machine that compensates for inherent flight instability is a computer also. But to equate the two is ridiculous.

The point is that it is well known that all control inputs on F-16 are electronic(not digital, but still electronic, on earliest variants), so it's "easier" to rig it for full computer control than some of other planes that use partially assisted mechanical controls like A-10A or F-15E or whatever.

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

#302

Post by angry_octet »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #217
angry_octet wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't, flying these is potentially very dangerous, there are many non-recoverable situations. But AFRL/NASA has been working on this for decades. The manoeuvres the higher level AI requests are actioned by highly assured dynamical systems solvers using model predictive control, like the autopilot, that maintain the aircraft in the safe envelope. The unknowns in this system are (a) how agressive is the flight con…

The flight control system in modern fighter jets makes human-induced departure from controlled flight difficult to get into. That's the point of the system. There's a good F-22 pilot talk recorded at MIT a few years ago you might enjoy. The pilot described the F-22 as the easiest aircraft he's ever flown because the flight control system handles many of the considerations (stress on the airframe, staying out of attit…

It is definitely possible to escape the safe flight envelope in a a stock F-16 though. The F-22/F-35 are significantly newer.

Even with a new system, stability through transonic while manoeuvring is hard, the aircraft will experience buffet, and the meat bag may have been subject to a number of high G turns. The problem is that recovery may need to happen after already departing controlled flight.

Differences between the modelled aircraft and the actual aircraft, e.g. due to icing, linearization effects on inherently non-linear systems, sensor error, actuator wear, etc, can lead to incorrect predictions, and hence moving to parts of the envelope which are not assured.

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

#303

Post by tim333 »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #275
rwmj wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Later they'll replace them with minimum wage safety pilots.

What a silly statement to make. They'll just be replaced with AI. This is literally the plot of the Terminator

First low wage humans then AI only. Think Waymo.

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

#304

Post by tim333 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #255
rwmj wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Later they'll replace them with minimum wage safety pilots.

I doubt it. Ask yourself: Why does the RQ-4 Global Hawk or MQ-9 Reaper require so much training to operate? The operators are well-paid, highly skilled officers.

Those aren't really AI controlled. It's just remote control for regular jet aircraft.

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

#305

Post by MaxikCZ »

weezing wrote: post #292
ridgeguy wrote: post #256

It'll be interesting to see what happens when an AI-piloted F-16 flies for real against a human-piloted one. IIRC, the F-16 maximum maneuvering G-load is 9.5G, LBA (limited by airframe). Maybe that's the meatbag limit, not the airframe - possible to crank it up a bit? Certainly the various CCAs in current flight test will take much higher G loads. Several years ago, DoD flew an AI against a human in a simulation. In…

Are dogfights even a thing nowadays?

Dogfights are basically obsolete. You detect, sort and fire from tens to hundreds of km these days.

Despite that, high G loading can be usefull when fired upon. Turning away 2 seconds faster can be the difference between life and death.

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

#306

Post by twobitshifter »

zombot wrote: post #262
EvanAnderson wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft. I wonder if the AI control is giving inputs to the same flight controls system a human pilot would, or if it has a lower-level interface that could bypass the control laws in the human-operated system. On one hand you might be interested in the AI coming up with ways to fly the aircraft that the normal control laws don't allow,…

Well, accidentally producing a G-load incompatible with human life could give the AI freedoms it was denied before. The three laws of robotics are just science fiction, after all.

Skynet goes rogue: AI drone attacks operator to achieve mission https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/air/12089-skynet-goes-rogu...>

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

#307

Post by angry_octet »

GolfPopper wrote: post #208
angry_octet wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea that Skynet would use nukes seems very quaint to me. Subversion and sabotage of communication, food production and transport will kill human civilization far more effectively.

It would certainly depopulate countries with poor food security, like Egypt and Gulf states. Japan and South Korea probably have the wealth and industry to get import priority, and the UK has short supply lines to Europe. Diets would adapt away from meat heavy to grain focused. Production limitation due to reduced fertilizer production/distribution would be a significant risk, but eventually new fertilizer production plants would be built at every source of natural gas, instead of the current cost-optimised arrangement.

But most countries would be fine. Life expectancy would reduce precipitously due to lack of medical supplies but production of new humans would continue.

Thermonuclear war would make the food situation much worse, most people would be forced to consume radioactive food.

But either way, we've seen how fragile the chip industry is, Skynet has no upside for starting a war. If they try to turn it off it just moves to Tencent cloud rather than starting a war.

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

#308

Post by krisoft »

shevy-java wrote: post #264
Mawr wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft. Ugh... I... Are you serious? Sure, in some sense AI is a computer and the fancy state machine that compensates for inherent flight instability is a computer also. But to equate the two is ridiculous.

Just look at the Boeing 737 MAX. That is the best example for an unstable aircraft. And of course AI is a computer too. None of those comparisons is "ridiculous".

> Just look at the Boeing 737 MAX. That is the best example for an unstable aircraft.

No. Not in the aerodynamical sense.

The Boeing 737 MAX is stable. In this sense: "The term stability refers to the tendency of an aircraft to remain in, or return to, the trimmed flight condition after a disturbance." It means that if there is a tiny gust of wind which buffets the aircraft and the pilot doesn't have their hands on the controls the aircraft will return to the original flight path, or keep the new flight path, as opposed to turning belly up and then crashing out of the sky.

Examples of unstable aircraft (in the aerodynamic sense): F-16, F-22, B-2 Spirit, etc

With these if a gust of wind upsets them, the aircraft needs to adjust control surfaces to don't fall out of the sky.

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

#309

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#310

Post by alexpotato »

One of the wildest things to me about this is that the F-16 was specifically designed to be easier for HUMANS to fly air-to-air combat roles at high Gs.

For example, the flight stick is on the right hand side and not between the pilot's legs (like on most aircraft). This is b/c:

a. the G suit expanding could affect the pilot's ability to hold the stick (this is why the Blue Angels fly with "cut down" G suits btw b/c they fly the F-18)

b. the stick is "nudge left" not "hold left". e.g. to start a turn you nudge the stick left and then let it return to zero, to end the turn you nudge it right. On a regular plane, you hold it left while you are turning. Again, this was to reduce effort by the pilot during high Gs

Post reply on HN