The aircraft flew up to speeds of 1,200mph. DARPA did not reveal which aircraft won the dogfight.
AI will win if not now, then soon. The reason is that even if it is worse than a human, the AI can pull off maneuvers that would black out a human.
Jets are far more powerful than humans are capable of controlling. Flight suits and training can only do so much to keep the pilot from blacking out.
Jets are far more powerful than humans are capable of controlling.
I think the same will eventually be true for AI, especially when you give it weapons
I think theres a movie about that
In 2020, so-called “AI agents” defeated human pilots in simulations in all five of their match-ups - but the technology needed to be run for real in the air.
It did not reveal which aircraft won the dogfight.
I’m gonna guess the AI won.
We all know which aircraft won the fight.
Those of us who play video games do at least. All the AI difficulty settings are arbitrary. You give the bot the ability to use its full capability, and the game is unplayable.
In video games the AI have access to all the data in the game. In real life both the human and AI have access to the same (maybe imprecise) sensor data. There are also physical limitations in the real world. I don’t think it’s the same scenario.
Not exactly, AI would be able to interpret sensor data in a more complete and thorough way. A person can only take in so much information at once - AI not so limited.
Don’t get me wrong. Humans have many limitations that AI don’t in this scenario. I’m not saying that a human would do better. For example, as others have stated, an AI doesn’t suffer from G forces like a human does. AI also reads the raw sensor data instead of a screen.
All I’m saying that this case is not the same as a videogame.
Are dogfights even still a thing?
I remember playing an F15 simulator 20 years ago where “dogfighting” already meant clicking on a radar blip 100 miles away, then doing something else while your missile killed the target.‘Dogfighting’ mostly just means air-to-air combat now. They do still make fighter jets that have guns or can mount guns, but I think they’re primarily intended for surface targets rather than air targets.
AI has a already won in these confrontations
Surface To Air missile made human piloted aircraft obsolete.
All that’s needed now are a bunch of missiles, plug into an AI program and let it run by itself.
Why would militaries invest in a billion dollar aircraft piloted by a highly trained aircraft pilot with years of training that cost millions of dollars that is probably paid millions over many years … when the pilot and his aircraft can be shot down by a $100,000 missile. If you can’t do it with one missile, send three, four or ten, it’s still cheaper than matching them with an aircraft and pilot.
Instead of investing in expensive aircraft and pilots, all a defending country can do is just spend the same amount of money and surround their country with anti aircraft missiles controlled by AI systems.
Are you not aware of stealth aircraft and evasive maneuvers? Not to mention that missiles won’t necessarily down aircraft.
How do you deploy manned fighters against an aircraft you can’t detect?
Edit: As to not downing the aircraft. That’s irrelevant. It wouldn’t matter if it’s an air to air missile or ground to air…you just fire more.
I can buy thousands of rockets for the cost of a single F22 or F16.
How do you deploy manned fighters against an aircraft you can’t detect?
Detect and target aren’t the same thing. There’s various Air Defense platforms that can detect stealth air craft but they lack the resolution necessary to target them. For targetting the launch platform has to be a lot closer.
I can buy thousands of rockets for the cost of a single F22 or F16.
Annnd were back to the Air Defense platforms being hideously expensive. Literally no one can afford enough of them to cover more than a tiny fraction of their air space.
Forget “thousands” of missiles any country larger than a Lichtenstein would to need to buy millions of them along with enough Ground Detection and Launch Stations to cover their entire border. Utterly and totally unaffordable.
You understand you need all that equipment to get a manned fighter close enough to engage. At that point firing a barrage of smart missiles is still cheaper.
And what equipment would that be?
The big cost would be satellite and radar coverage. We have that already.
So many downers here. I see this as the step to the true way war was meant to be fought- with giant robots on the moon.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The wars of the future will not be fought on a battlefield or at sea…
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I am a FIRM believer in any automated kill without a human pulling the trigger is a war crime
Yes mines yes uavs yes yes yes
It is a crime against humanity
Stop
I am a firm believer that any war is a crime and there is no ethical way to wage wars lmao It’s some kind of naive idea from extremely out of touch politicans.
War never changes.
The idea that we don’t do war crimes and they do is only there to placate our fragile conscience. To assure us that yes we are indeed the good guys. That kills of infants by our soldiers are merely the collateral. A necessary price.
Absolutely. But
There’s a science and whole cultures built around war now
It is important to not infantilize the debate by being absolutist and just shutting any action out.
I am a hard core pacifist at heart.
But this law I want is just not related to that. It is something I feel is needed just to not spell doom on our species. Like with biological warfare
How often do robots fail? How can anyone be so naive as to not see the same danger as with bio warfare? You can’t assure a robot to not become a mass murder cold ass genocidal perpetual machine. And that’s a no no if we want to exist
I broadly agree, but that’s not what this is, right?
This is a demonstration of using AI to execute combat against an explicitly selected target.
So it still needs the human to pull the trigger, just the trigger does some sick plane stunts rather than just firing a bullet in a straight line.
I would imagine it was more than evasive since they called it a dogfight, but ye
You mean it should be a war crime, right? Or is there some treaty I am unaware of?
Also, why? I don’t necessarily disagree, I am just curious about your reasoning.
Mines are designated war crimes by the
Geneva conventionOttawa treaty because of the indiscriminate killing. Many years ago, good human right lawyers could have extended that to drones… (Source: i had close friends in international law)But i feel like now the tides have changed and tech companies have influenced the general population to think that ai is good enough to prevent “indiscriminate” killing.
Edit: fixed the treaty name, thanks!
Mines are designated war crimes by the Geneva convention
Use of mines is not designated a war crime by the Geneva Convention.
Some countries are members of a treaty that prohibits the use of some types of mines, but that is not the Geneva Convention.
Mines are not part of what people refer to as the Geneva conventions. There is a separate treaty specifically banning some landmines, that was signed by a lot of countries but not really any that mattered.
Not OP, but if you can’t convince a person to kill another person then you shouldn’t be able to kill them anyways.
There are points in historical conflicts, from revolutions to wars, when the very people you picked to fight for your side think “are we the baddies” and just stop fighting. This generally leads to less deaths and sometimes a more democratic outcome.
If you can just get a drone to keep killing when any reasonable person would surrender you’re empowering authoritarianism and tyranny.
Take WWI Christmas when everyone got out of the trenches and played some football (no not American foot touches the ball 3x a game)
It almost ended the war
Yes the humanity factor is vital
Imagine the horrid destructive cold force of automated genocide, it can not be met by anything other than the same or worse and at that point we are truly doomed
Because there will then be no one that can prevent it anymore
It must be met with worse opposition than biological warfare did after wwI, hopefully before tragedy
Yes
Because it is a slippery slope and dangerous to our future existence as a species
Slippery slope how?
First it is enemy tanks. Then enemy air. Then enemy boats and vehicles, then foot soldiers and when these weapons are used the same happens to their enemy. Then at last one day all humans are killed
What if the human is pulling the trigger to “paint the target” and tag it for hunt and destroy then the drone goes and kills it? Because that’s how lots of missles already work. So where’s the line?
If it is a bad kill, is there a person who will go to jail or be executed for it?
Only the losing side is subject to war crimes trials, and no doubt rules of engagement will be developed and followed to prevent people going to jail due to “bad kills”.
There are really no “bad kills” in the armed services, there’s just limited exposure of public scandals.
Especially for the US who doesn’t subject its self to international courts like The Hague. So any atrocities, accidents, or war crimes will still just be internal scandals and temporary.
Same as it is today.
Removed by mod
If a country implements murder machines that efficiently slay a continent then does not stop at the sea.
Will nobody for real do nothing?
Is that your belief for bad kills? Same with gas and engineered disease?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Like if someone made a biological weapon that wipes out a continent
Will someone go to prison?
It’s no difference
The line is where an automatic process target and execute a human being. When it is automated. The arming of a device is not sufficient to warrant a human interaction, and as such mines are also not allowed.
This should in my opinion always have been the case. Mines are indiscriminate and have proven to be wildly inhumane in several ways. Significantly, innocents are often killed.
But mines don’t paint the picture of what automated slaughter can lead to.
The point has been laid that when the conscious mind has to kill, it makes war have an important way to end, in the mind.
The dangers extend well beyond killing innocent targets, another part is the coldness of allowing a machine to decide, that is beyond morally corrupt. There is something terrifying about the very idea that facing one of these weapons, there is nothing to negotiate, the cold calculations that want to kill you are not human. It is a place where no human ever wants to be. But war is horrible. It’s the escalation of automated triggers that can lead to exponential death with no remorse which is just a terrible danger.
The murder weapons has nobody’s intent behind them, except very far back, in the arming and the program. It open for scenarios where mass murder becomes easy and terrifyingly cold.
Kind of like the prisoner’s dilemma shows us, that when war escalates, it can quickly devolve into revenge narratives, and when either side has access to cold impudent kills, they will use them. This removes even more humanity from the acts and the violence can reach new heights beyond our comprehension.
Weapons of mass destruction with automated triggers will eventually seal our existence if we don’t abolish it with impunity. It has been seen over and over how the human factor is the only grace that ever end or contain war. Without this component I think we are just doomed to have the last intent humans ever had was revenge, and the last emotions fear and complete hopelessness.
Well, that’s all very idealistic, but it’s likely not going to happen.
Israel already used AI to pick bombing sites, those bombs and missiles would have been programmed with altitudes and destinations (armed) then dropped. The pilots only job these days is to avoid interception, fly over the bombing locations, tag the target when acquired, and drop them. Most of this is already done in software.
Eventually humans will leave the loop because unlike self-driving cars, these technologies won’t risk the lives of the aggressor’s citizens.
If the technology is seen as unstoppable enough, there may be calls for warnings to be given, but I suspect that’s all the mercy that will be shown…
… especially if it’s a case of a country with automated technologies killing one without or with stochastically meaningless defenses (eg. Defenses that modelling and simulations show won’t be able to prevent such attacks).
No, in all likelihood the US will tell the country the attack sites, the country either will or will not have the technical level to prevent an amount of damage, will evacuate all necessary personal, and whoever doesn’t get the message or get out in time will be automatically killed.
Where defenses are partially successful, that information will go into the training data for the next model, or upgrade, and the war machine will roll on.
Sorry I was stressed when replying. Yeah in those cases humans have pulled the trigger. At several stages.
When arming a murder bot ship and sending to erase an island of life, you then lose control. That person is not pulling loads and loads of triggers. The triggers are automatic by a machine making the decision to end these lives.
And that is a danger, same as with engineered bio warfare. It just cannot be let out of the box even, or we all may die extremely quick.
Removed by mod
The entire point of automating the killing is that it is no dead man’s switch or any other human interaction involved in the kill. It is moot if there is one such. Call offs or dead switch back doors safety contingencies are not a solution to rampant unwanted slaughter as it can fail in so many ways and when the wars escalate to the point where those need to be used it is too late because there are 5 different strains of murder bots and you can only stop the ones you have codes to and those codes are only given to like three people at top secret level 28
Removed by mod
