4 ms·

That's pretty awesome. I wonder if it would be feasible with modern tech to build a neural net powered autotracker on a raspi (or some other cheap, compact, low

That's pretty awesome. I wonder if it would be feasible with modern tech to build a neural net powered autotracker on a raspi (or some other cheap, compact, low power microcontroller). Mark a target with a button on the side of the rifle, have the controller lock the trigger until target it aligned. Could build in range compensation and might not even need a neural net to track simple targets. But you need a way to segment target pixels and track them as they move.

_Microft 7y ago
We have distinctly different definitions of awesome.
- maroonblazer 7y ago
  Aren't you just not imagining a terrific enough enemy?
- taneq 7y ago
  Awesome: adj inspiring awe Modern general usage aside, it's always meant 'overwhelmingly impressive' rather than 'good'.
exdsq 7y ago
I think this is the first time I can honestly say, regardless of the comp, I would never work on something like that.
- noir_lord 7y ago
  I made that decision 20 years ago. I refuse to work on anything that compromises my morality so that includes your case, gambling sites, user tracking (and advertising platforms) and particularly weapons systems etc. Note: I have no issue with people who do, it's not on me to judge them.
sansnomme 7y ago
See star trackers; not quite the same thing but this sort of technology is not exactly exotic, it has not been for a few decades at the very least.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
m0zg 7y ago
You can even train a net which will show you where all the targets are. Not even faces, _any_ part of a human. Butt sticks out from a shallow trench? Butt gets shot off. And it won't be limited to visible spectrum either, so it could largely "ignore" camo. And it could be augmented by similar AI-based person detection from a drone. This is not doable on a Raspberry Pi, but something like a recent Snapdragon SoC should be able to do it without breaking a sweat. It's all coming, the question is who gets it first and how accurate it is. If you think about it rationally, this is actually not a bad thing. As MAD shows, if there is a potential for armed conflict, it's better from the casualty standpoint if one or both of the sides have overwhelming firepower. Then either the weaker side, or both sides will choose not to engage because the "victory", even if achievable, would come at too high a cost. The only real problem I see with this is if this tech makes its way to the "bad" folks, like ISIS. When any idiot can somewhat reliably hit targets a mile out, things get problematic. Another interesting thing about this is that with today's science and technology I could cobble a pretty good version of what I described together in less than a year, hardware and all, for under a million dollars (assuming I already have multispectral dataset, if not, add another million). Which tells me that pretty much every even somewhat developed nation state already has their own version.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  >Which tells me that pretty much every even somewhat developed nation state already has their own version. That, or they don't because target identification and having authorization to fire are not problems that will be so easily solved. We generally try to avoid friendly fire. The device you described sounds like an indiscriminate killing machine. There's a reason we gave up area-denial weapons like mines. They kill indiscriminately and create huge political problems that mean you can win a battle and lose the war.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Soldiers in the field do not receive "authorization" for every shot they fire. When developed to its logical final form, this could be a part of _every_ rifle, turning every soldier into an all-seeing super-marksman. And in this case there's no "indiscriminate killing machine", because soldier pulls the trigger - the weapon does not fire on its own. And that's the way it ought to be.

_Microft 7y ago

We have distinctly different definitions of awesome.

maroonblazer 7y ago
Aren't you just not imagining a terrific enough enemy?
taneq 7y ago
Awesome: adj inspiring awe Modern general usage aside, it's always meant 'overwhelmingly impressive' rather than 'good'.

exdsq 7y ago

I think this is the first time I can honestly say, regardless of the comp, I would never work on something like that.

noir_lord 7y ago
I made that decision 20 years ago. I refuse to work on anything that compromises my morality so that includes your case, gambling sites, user tracking (and advertising platforms) and particularly weapons systems etc. Note: I have no issue with people who do, it's not on me to judge them.

sansnomme 7y ago

See star trackers; not quite the same thing but this sort of technology is not exactly exotic, it has not been for a few decades at the very least.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

m0zg 7y ago

You can even train a net which will show you where all the targets are. Not even faces, _any_ part of a human. Butt sticks out from a shallow trench? Butt gets shot off. And it won't be limited to visible spectrum either, so it could largely "ignore" camo. And it could be augmented by similar AI-based person detection from a drone. This is not doable on a Raspberry Pi, but something like a recent Snapdragon SoC should be able to do it without breaking a sweat. It's all coming, the question is who gets it first and how accurate it is. If you think about it rationally, this is actually not a bad thing. As MAD shows, if there is a potential for armed conflict, it's better from the casualty standpoint if one or both of the sides have overwhelming firepower. Then either the weaker side, or both sides will choose not to engage because the "victory", even if achievable, would come at too high a cost. The only real problem I see with this is if this tech makes its way to the "bad" folks, like ISIS. When any idiot can somewhat reliably hit targets a mile out, things get problematic. Another interesting thing about this is that with today's science and technology I could cobble a pretty good version of what I described together in less than a year, hardware and all, for under a million dollars (assuming I already have multispectral dataset, if not, add another million). Which tells me that pretty much every even somewhat developed nation state already has their own version.

Enginerrrd 7y ago
>Which tells me that pretty much every even somewhat developed nation state already has their own version. That, or they don't because target identification and having authorization to fire are not problems that will be so easily solved. We generally try to avoid friendly fire. The device you described sounds like an indiscriminate killing machine. There's a reason we gave up area-denial weapons like mines. They kill indiscriminately and create huge political problems that mean you can win a battle and lose the war.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Soldiers in the field do not receive "authorization" for every shot they fire. When developed to its logical final form, this could be a part of _every_ rifle, turning every soldier into an all-seeing super-marksman. And in this case there's no "indiscriminate killing machine", because soldier pulls the trigger - the weapon does not fire on its own. And that's the way it ought to be.