Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Hossenfeffer ,
@Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk avatar

Pfffft. The AI couldn't even fly its plane the right way up.

https://feddit.uk/pictrs/image/726c095d-40dc-416b-a230-5f4c4e53dd45.jpeg

Melatonin ,

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.

androogee ,

We don't even know if it won lmao

Aatube OP ,
@Aatube@kbin.melroy.org avatar

But if we keep developing them...

androogee ,

Oh I'm not a fan.

It just seems a bit early to declare Skynet a fulfilled prediction haha.

Sam_Bass ,

Only cookies youre gonna get me to voluntarily accept are oatmeal raisin, so imma have to pass

Siegfried , (edited )

I see we are gonna take a piss on Asimov's robots rules pretty quickly

Asafum ,

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?

Siegfried ,

Not at all, but it kind of bugs me how Asimov's perception of the future weighted so much fear towards AI over profit.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Ultragigagigantic ,
@Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world avatar

Robotjox_IRL

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I see you're familiar with the Charles Band oeuvre.

bionicjoey ,

The wars of the future will not be fought on a battlefield or at sea...

antidote101 ,

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.

plz1 ,

That's likely the plan, but they have to start with known-working hardware configurations first.

fidodo ,

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.

antidote101 ,

Manufacturing costs will probably determine whether it carries missiles, or is a missile.

KeenFlame ,

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

xor ,

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.

KeenFlame ,

I would imagine it was more than evasive since they called it a dogfight, but ye

DreamlandLividity ,

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.

Hacksaw ,

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.

n3m37h ,

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

KeenFlame ,

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

ohwhatfollyisman ,

see star trek TNG episode The Arsenal of Freedom for a more explicit visualisation of this ☝️ guy's point.

KeenFlame ,

Yes

Because it is a slippery slope and dangerous to our future existence as a species

DreamlandLividity ,

Slippery slope how?

KeenFlame ,

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

i_love_FFT , (edited )
@i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml avatar

Mines are designated war crimes by the Geneva convention Ottawa 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!

tal ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty

DreamlandLividity ,

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.

antidote101 ,

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?

KeenFlame ,

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.

antidote101 ,

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.

KeenFlame ,

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

KeenFlame ,

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.

antidote101 ,

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.

KeenFlame ,

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

antidote101 , (edited )

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    KeenFlame ,

    Extremely childish to use personal attacks for me sharing my opinion

    Good luck with that kind of graceful life lol bye man, if you ever grow up we can continue discussing haha

    antidote101 ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    KeenFlame ,

    Nope

    postmateDumbass ,

    If it is a bad kill, is there a person who will go to jail or be executed for it?

    antidote101 , (edited )

    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.

    KeenFlame ,

    Biological and chemical warfare

    KeenFlame ,

    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?

    antidote101 ,

    A murder machine would likely run out of supplies before then (either fuel or bullets).

    You've jumped to a theoretical sci fi abstraction, so don't feel the need to respond.

    KeenFlame ,

    Ah, the child's way out of a discussion. Grandiose.

    antidote101 ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    KeenFlame ,

    Yes they do.

    Do you not understand how childish it is to vomit several personal attacks on me for my opinion

    You are the one interested and I reply my opinion

    Grow the absolute fuck up

    antidote101 ,

    You don't have an original thought in your head. Look at you, you're repeating things I said to you. What a joke.

    KeenFlame ,

    Very mature

    postmateDumbass ,

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/23/politics/eddie-gallagher-navy-seal-trial/index.html

    antidote101 ,

    Not an international court, and ergo an internal matter, and a temporary one. Probably won't be noticed by the majority of international news coverage let alone the international community in political terms.

    So that's very different to The Hague, which might consider trying an entire area of a millitary or an entire operation, or reason for a conflict... A larger process, that's external and recognised by the world community and significant to international journalism.

    VirtualOdour ,

    Of course there isn't just like there isn't when a human makes a mistake on the battlefield, you think that every civilian killed by an American soldier in Afghanistan resulted in a trial and punishment? American hasn't executed amy soldiers since 1961 (for rape and attempted murder of a child in austria, not during war)

    Honestly at least the military code will obey orders and only focus on the objective rather than rape and murder for fun.

    KeenFlame ,

    Like if someone made a biological weapon that wipes out a continent

    Will someone go to prison?

    It's no difference

    Emmie , (edited )

    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.

    KeenFlame ,

    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

    NeatNit ,

    I see this as a positive: when both sides have AI unmanned planes, we get cool dogfights without human risk! Ideally over ocean or desert and with Hollywood cameras capturing every second in exquisite detail.

    WalnutLum ,

    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.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    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?

    Professorozone ,

    But... But.... Maverick?

    Obonga ,

    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.

    echodot ,

    Perhaps we could develop AI proxies that could die in our stead.

    Hacksaw ,

    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?

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    mrfriki ,

    Skynet will be proud of them.

    SeabassDan ,

    "Luck is one of my skills" when it turns out this entire thing is a terrible idea for the date of humanity.

    intensely_human ,

    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.

    Jimmycakes ,

    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.

    Cethin ,

    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.

    intensely_human ,

    What if we invent artificial gravity just so we can simulate pilot orientation and g forces while they sit still in a simulator?

    echodot ,

    Whataboutism taken to its extreme there.

    Hell, what if we invented warp drive that allowed us to teleport bombs directly into our enemies headquarters?

    magnusrufus ,

    Nonsense hypotheticals are not whataboutism.

    intensely_human ,

    Thank you

    Aatube OP ,
    @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org avatar

    We already have g-force simulation.

    intensely_human ,

    No we have g-force production. Until we release those electrogravitics from the top secret labs we can’t actually simulate g forces.

    Aatube OP ,
    @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org avatar

    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.

    intensely_human ,

    No centrifuges create g-forces. The forces you feel in a centrifuge are actual g-forces.

    Aatube OP ,
    @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org avatar

    Why do we need "authentic" g-forces to be "created"? As you've said, people already feel g-forces in centrifuges.

    Natanael ,

    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)

    echodot ,

    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.

    Bgugi ,

    What if the pilot has a stroke?

    intensely_human ,

    Yeah but a camera lead falling out isn’t normal

    calcopiritus ,

    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.

    BluesF ,

    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.

    calcopiritus ,

    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.

    intensely_human ,

    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.

    NeatNit ,

    While true, I wonder how many games actually do this.

    VirtualOdour ,

    Ai can balance a physical triple pendulum and move between positions fluidly just using vision alone, a human has no chance at coming close.

    We're genuinely in the sci-fi robots are better than humans phase of history, by 2030 you'll be used to seeing impressive things done by robots like dude perfect videos with people setting up crazy challenges like 'I got my robot to throw THIS egg through THIS obstacle course and you'll never belive how it did it!'

    NeatNit ,

    I think even the imperfect sensor data is enough to beat a human. My main argument for why self-driving cars will eventually be objectively safer than the best human drivers (no comment about whether that point has already done) is this:

    A human can only look at one thing at a time. Compared to a computer, we see allow, think slow, react show, move slow. A computer can look in all directions all the time, and react to danger coming from any of those directions faster than a human driver would even if they were lucky enough to be looking in the right direction. Add to that the fact that they can take in much more sensor data that isn't available to the driver or take away from precious looking-at-the-road time for the driver to know, such as wind resistance, engine RPM, or what have you (I'm actually not a car guy so my examples aren't the best). Bottom line: the AI has a direct connection to more data, can take more of it in at once and make faster decisions based on all of it. It's inherently better. The "only" hurdles are making it actually interpret its sensors effectively (i.e. understand what cameras are seeing) and make good decisions based on this data. We can argue about how well either of those are in the current state of the technology, but IMO they're both good enough today to massively outperform a human in most scenarios.

    All of this applies to an AI plane as well. So my money is on the AI.

    BlackNo1 ,

    i hate this world

    KISSmyOSFeddit ,

    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.

    VindictiveJudge ,
    @VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world avatar

    '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.

    intensely_human ,

    I always thought it would be a game change to have guns that could point different directions.

    Cocodapuf ,

    Many aircraft guns do that. It's also usually automatic, look a direction and the gun points where you look.

    Cethin ,

    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.

    intensely_human ,

    I meant to just shoot the other plane without having to point your plane straight at them

    Cethin ,

    Most dogfights are done by missiles these days. You lock on, fire, and forget. A ballistic projectile wouldn't be useful at those ranges. I guess if AI fighter jets change progression to bring things back to close-in combat something like that may be useful. I don't predict it'd happen, but there's a chance. Missiles can just pack so much more thrust-per-second into a small package than a jet can, but AI jets could be a lot more agile and essentially a missile firing missile, or similar, letting them close distance better whole avoiding incoming ordinance.

    echodot ,

    So turrets?

    They had that back in the first world war.

    freeman ,

    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.

    echodot ,

    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.

    freeman ,

    No not really, my point is that people have a distorted and exaggerated view of BVR. 100 miles was beyond even the max range of common missiles and even with modern missiles like meteor it's completely unrealistic to fire at that kind of range. Provided that you have detected and are able to track the target at that range.

    I don't know if modern planes will have to resort to guns but WVR dogfights with IR missiles are more likely than destroying F-35s at BVR ranges.

    6daemonbag ,

    Is Sharon Apple somehow involved? Can we get a list of virtual idols with suspicious behavior?

    chatokun ,

    Instantly my thought too.

    FenrirIII ,
    @FenrirIII@lemmy.world avatar

    That's a Macross reference?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •