3 ms·

This is a fascinating article that is well written and has a lot of interesting information. However it feels like he is falling into the same trap that most o

This is a fascinating article that is well written and has a lot of interesting information. However it feels like he is falling into the same trap that most of the media falls into constantly, thinking that AI & Software are easy. If he thinks the F-35 was hard to launch with all it's software that's nothing compared to an autonomous combat swarm with all the features he's talking about. You can't rush out stuff that controls machines killing stuff. My guess is he's more of an aviation guy than a software guy so this stuff somehow doesn't seem as hard as it is. He also mentions the USAF has had a lot of black programs but then continues on with the thesis that they're ignoring this as opposed to continuing to develop in the black. Also these swarms will be least effective in the kinds of operations we've been mired in. It's a lot easier to set a swarm in motion with orders to clear the sky in a WW3 scenario than it is to have them try and shoot a particular pickup truck filled with civilian-clothed possible enemy combatants in an urban area in Afghanistan.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
As long as you've observed the particular pickup truck before IDing it later is actually a very solved problem (like, the exact one, not just make and model). Back when I was an intern I worked on the "old boring currently deployed legacy tech" and it was quite good (probably scary good to some people) and it was using radar signatures. I suspect that the development of that technology combined with recent visual spectrum developments (i.e. cheap good cameras) has made the tech even better. Having the good judgement to not obliterate the truck while it's yielding for a funeral procession is the hard part to do in software. I agree he's underestimating the software complexity. Anyone can built that crap. It takes tons of R&D man hours to refine it into something that actually works and works consistently in the real world.
- stunt 7y ago
  I think he is talking about decision making abilities. But even stuff you mentioned are too hard to build for a real world military scenario. They have to deal with countless different objects, scenarios, and situations. Too many edge cases to cover and will take ages to adjust and it will be full of human errors. They can build it for simple tasks. Find the best route to go there, bomb that specific target, come back and during your mission deal with a limited set of defense scenarios.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

As long as you've observed the particular pickup truck before IDing it later is actually a very solved problem (like, the exact one, not just make and model). Back when I was an intern I worked on the "old boring currently deployed legacy tech" and it was quite good (probably scary good to some people) and it was using radar signatures. I suspect that the development of that technology combined with recent visual spectrum developments (i.e. cheap good cameras) has made the tech even better. Having the good judgement to not obliterate the truck while it's yielding for a funeral procession is the hard part to do in software. I agree he's underestimating the software complexity. Anyone can built that crap. It takes tons of R&D man hours to refine it into something that actually works and works consistently in the real world.

stunt 7y ago
I think he is talking about decision making abilities. But even stuff you mentioned are too hard to build for a real world military scenario. They have to deal with countless different objects, scenarios, and situations. Too many edge cases to cover and will take ages to adjust and it will be full of human errors. They can build it for simple tasks. Find the best route to go there, bomb that specific target, come back and during your mission deal with a limited set of defense scenarios.