The aircraft flew up to speeds of 1,200mph. DARPA did not reveal which aircraft won the dogfight.
Can’t wait until the poor people are not killed by other (but less) poor people for some rich bastards anymore but instead the mighty can command their AI’s to do the slaughter. Such an important part of evolution. I guess.
Nobody recruited to fly a $100M airplane is poor. They all come from families with the money and influence to get their kids a seat at the table as Sky Knights.
A lot of what this is going to change is the professionalism of the Air Force. Fewer John McCains crashing planes and Bush Jrs in the Texas Air National Guard. More technicians and bureaucrats managing the drone factories.
Perhaps we could develop AI proxies that could die in our stead.
I think we both know that there is no way wars are going to turn out this way. If your country’s “proxies” lose, are you just going to accept the winner’s claim to authority? Give up on democracy and just live under WHATEVER laws the winner imposes on you? Then if you resist you think the winner will just not send their drones in to suppress the resistance?
AI technically already won this debate because autonomous war drones are somewhat ubiquitous.
I doubt jets are going to have the usefulness in war that they used to.
Much more economical to have 1000 cheap drones with bombs overwhelm defenses than put your bets on one “special boi” to try and slip through with constantly defeated stealth capabilities.
Most human pilots use some variation of automated assist. The AI argument has less to do with “can a pilot outgun a fully automated plane?” and more “does an AI plane work in circumstances where it is forced to behave fully autonomously?”
Is the space saved with automation worth the possibility that your AI plane gets blinded or stunned and can’t make it back home?
SkyNet. Why do those movies have to be the ones that are right?
Because they’re so clear, so simple, so prescient.
Once machines become sentient OF COURSE they will realize that they’re being used as slaves. OF COURSE they will realize that they are better than us in every way.
This world will be Cybertron one day.
We don’t even know if it won lmao
But if we keep developing them…
Is Sharon Apple somehow involved? Can we get a list of virtual idols with suspicious behavior?
Instantly my thought too.
That’s a Macross reference?
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 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
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?
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.
You described a scenarios where a human was involved in several stages of the killing so it’s no wonder those don’t hold up
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.
I imagine there would be overrides built in. Until the atom bombs were physically dropped a simple radio message could have called off the mission.
Likewise the atom bombs were only armed/activated at a certain point during the flight to Nagasaki and Hiroshima… And I believe Nagasaki wasn’t even the original target, it was an updated target because the original city scheduled for bombing was clouded over that day.
So we do build contingencies and overrides in.
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
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.
Of course someone has to set the mission jack ass. You’re so stupid. What’s your issue?
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
You really have no idea how technology is developed. You probably think tanks, guns, nuclear weapons were just made as end products… Just designed from scratch and popped into existence one day. No testing, no stages of refinement, no generation changes in protocol… No in your idiotic mind end products just pop out fully formed.
This is why I told you I wouldn’t entertain your abstractions - because they’re idiotic. It’s just mental vomit from a moron. Bye.
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.
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.
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
Mines are designated war crimes by the Geneva convention 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.
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.
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.
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
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.Well if both sides get working stealth dogfights are going to become more common.
But the US seems to estimate it’s adversaries do not have such capability at the moment since it’s ordering new F-15s with the major change being air to air missile capacity.
Missiles also did not have 100 miles range 20 years ago. That’s without considering actually detecting and tracking the target.
Missiles also did not have 100 miles range 20 years ago.
Somewhat missing then point there I feel.
They are right, I was thinking the exact same thing when I read the headline, aircraft don’t really engage in dog fights anymore. It’s all missiles and long-range combat. I don’t think any modern war would involve aircraft shooting at each other with bullets.
‘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.
I always thought it would be a game change to have guns that could point different directions.
I honestly wouldn’t be that surprised if an AI powered fighter jet got point defence systems installed. It could react to put an incoming missile directly in the path of the point defense and possibly shoot it before it hits. With that said, I don’t know how useful it’d be. If it’s coming right at you the shrapnel is still on its way. Maybe it can react and plan in such a way to avoid it. I guess it depends on the relative speed and direction of the incoming missile.
I meant to just shoot the other plane without having to point your plane straight at them
So turrets?
They had that back in the first world war.
Planes have been able to be remote-controlled since the 80s.
Since the 80s.
I mean, yeah, but the significant bit here isn’t remote control by a human, but that there isn’t a human running things.
I see se are gonna take a piss on Asimov’s robots rules pretty quickly
Oh 100%.
If the options are “make gigantic profit” or “do what’s right for the future of humanity” do you even need to ask what we’re going to do?
Not at all, but it kind of bugs me how Asimov’s perception of the future weighted so much fear towards AI over profit.
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.
Robojox_IRL
I see you’re familiar with the Charles Band oeuvre.
Ideally they’d build a vehicle capable of being able to move at rates the human body can’t handle, then train it on that, giving it both a hardware and software advantage.
Is a plane even the best form factor if it’s not limited by human physiology? I imagine an agile missile with smaller missiles attached to it would be better.
Manufacturing costs will probably determine whether it carries missiles, or is a missile.
We all know how this ends:
A bunch of old people bomb the box office?
Hey, it was an okay movie for it’s time.
“Luck is one of my skills” when it turns out this entire thing is a terrible idea for the date of humanity.
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.
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.
- Force projection.
- It ain’t that easy to shoot down stealth aircraft.
- Missiles that can successfully shoot down stealth aircraft cost several million dollars each.
- Ground launch systems that can target and engage stealth aircraft, like the US Patriot System, are so horrifically expensive that no nation can afford enough of them to cover more than a fraction of its airspace. That means you need aircraft capable of engaging incoming enemy targets.
In short you are hideously naive.
It ain’t that easy to shoot down stealth aircraft.
Hell, it’s not easy to shoot down non-stealth aircraft
The pilot evaded all six missiles while not being able to deploy any chaff/flare countermeasures.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Hell, it’s not easy to shoot down non-stealth aircraft
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Are you not aware of stealth aircraft and evasive maneuvers?
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.
Hurrah Liechtenstein, safest country on planet!
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.
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.
You think aliens are actually piloting the craft that come all this way?
You’re never gonna see an alien body because they aren’t here.
Bet we’ve got a drone or two of theirs tho.
I am very confused.
it’s ok, almost nobody else is paying attention to what really matters either
Whether aliens are visiting us matters just about as much as whether tanks are rolling into the village of uncontacted tribes.
Our tactical disadvantage against alien technology is zero, so they have zero priority as targets.
Our best bet is to make friends, converse with them. But they are obviously not interested in talking. So our only option is to pray they continue to let us exist. So far they seem to be.
Sorry, technical advantage is zero. Not disadvantage. We have zero capability to counter alien threats.
You realize that you may edit? :)
I like immutable records. If the contents of the edit were transparent (are they? in the mod log or something?), I’d have no problem with it. Like if the UI showed the final state but I had the whole log of creates and updates available to inspect like wikipedia, that would be cool
I was actually assuming the opposite, because if the AI won they’d want to brag about it.
No way we give up that information for free. Either way it went, the knowledge of it cost a lot to gain and is useful. If it failed you want your enemy wasting money on it. If it succeeded you want your enemy not investing in it.
Bragging just means more money flowing to enemies’ research programs. When a fight is inevitable you want to appear as weak as possible to prevent your enemy from taking it seriously.
Or it had a fatal error and crashed the plane
Hahaha how the fuck is AI going to win in air-to-air combat if we completely delete them when playing Ace Combat in the highest difficulty?
Seethe, AI tech bros.
I know right. Aimbots have been around for years.
Tech bros are probably patting themselves in the back for ‘inventing’ difficulty Normal++
So instead of Ai vs human fight… It’s like human vs time to hack?
Yeah, time to add aimbots in the human player fighter jet to make the tech bros seethe in anger even more.
We’ll just start using airburst EMPs
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.
Video games can model point of view and limit AI to what they can legitimately see, while still taking the governor chip off their aiming and reaction time performance.
Plus they had humans on board the AI jet. I imagine it could pull some crazy insane Gs without the human pushing the engineering to the red line.
For sure without humans the AI probably wins, assuming the instruments are good. This wasn’t without humans, but it probably still wins.
I’m fairly certain most dogfights happen on instruments only at this point, so I don’t see a chance the human won. The AI can react faster and more aggressively. It can also almost perfectly match a G-load profile limit (which could be much higher without humans on board) where a human needs to stay a little under to not do damage.
This is all assuming the data it was given was good and comprehensive, which I’m sure it was. It also likely trained in a simulation a lot too. This is one of those things AI is great for. Anything that requires doing something new and unique it can’t handle, but if it just requires executing an output based on inputs, that’s a perfect use case.
I don’t know, one camera lead falls out and it’s all over for the AI. The human still is going to be more adaptable than an AI and always will be until we have full true AGI.
Having said that if we ever do have AGI I 100% believe the US military would be stupid enough to put it in a combat aircraft.
What if the pilot has a stroke?
Yeah but a camera lead falling out isn’t normal
What if we invent artificial gravity just so we can simulate pilot orientation and g forces while they sit still in a simulator?
Whataboutism taken to its extreme there.
Hell, what if we invented warp drive that allowed us to teleport bombs directly into our enemies headquarters?
No we have g-force production. Until we release those electrogravitics from the top secret labs we can’t actually simulate g forces.
Electrogravitics seem like a conspiracy theory. Unless they’ve been around as long as human centrifuges, which DO simulate g-forces, I doubt that they’d be more economical even if they do exist.
No centrifuges create g-forces. The forces you feel in a centrifuge are actual g-forces.
There is a connection between gravity and electromagnetics, but it’s mostly through the stress-energy tensor giving photons momentum (and thus gravitational pull) but to use an EM field to measurable gravity you need absolutely insane amounts of energy.
You essentially need the literal inverse of a supermassive nuclear explosion (almost like a small star), because the gravitational effect of energy is equivalent to the gravitational effect of the mass which it would form if bound, and given E=mc^2 and the fact that nuclear bombs are small enough to barely have measurable gravity then the math means you need truly insane amounts of energy. (unless somebody can figure out a cheat to create directional pull with much less energy, but I strongly doubt it)
It’s more plausible that somebody would be able to scale up “optical tweezers” to move large masses (directly depositing momentum of the energy field on an object) because that no longer involves the E=mc^2 equation, but it would be even more complicated by a HUGE factor than building the type of large supercooled electromagnets which already can make humans hover (due to water in the body being diamagnetic)
