4 ms·

Reading the article (its short) it's a one ton robotic apparatus + gun, mounted, or at least transported, by a pickup truck. The gun utilized satellites to calc

Reading the article (its short) it's a one ton robotic apparatus + gun, mounted, or at least transported, by a pickup truck. The gun utilized satellites to calculate its shots. This particular one wasn't much of a remote weapon deployable anywhere, but rather a weapon that replaces the requirement for an actual sniper to be competent and have a clear LOS. On some level I'd expect this thing could, for example, shoot through opaque conditions like smoke, or walls if the ballistics don't threaten it too much . It seems like it fired several shots which would help in that regard. You still, practically for a device this heavy and presumably expensive, would want a human driving it around and setting it up.

walrus01 5y ago
> The gun utilized satellites to calculate its shots. highly doubtful. More likely it was something like a good quality camera fitted to a scope, outputting around 1.5 to 2 Mbps H264 or H265 4:2:0 color space video, with a data link over satellite to a remote controller. Some person staring at a screen with ability to pan and tilt the weapon.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  The article states > The gun itself was connected to an Israeli command center via a satellite communication relay. There an operative was able to control the gun and take aim at its target via a computer screen. Seems I misread that.
- nisegami 5y ago
  Trying to imagine how this would feel different from a video game if you didn't know better and coming up pretty short.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The key "AI" contribution, after you dig down through all the media misunderstanding, appears to be this: [NYT]> The time it took for the camera images to reach the sniper and for the sniper’s response to reach the machine gun, not including his reaction time, was estimated to be 1.6 seconds, enough of a lag for the best-aimed shot to go astray. So aiming and firing was initiated by a human, but hardware and software attempted to mask the time delay in doing so against a moving vehicle. Which seems plausible: optical flow + basic vehicle vector and velocity calculations. There's also some stuff in the various articles about facial recognition, but that sounds a bit far fetched and unreliable. If you have a person in the loop with enough resolution to accurately aim, then why are you running facial recognition to discriminate targets?
  - antegamisou 5y ago
    Pretty sure this is entirely based on classical optimal control theory. But hey good luck getting any clicks with that instead of good ol' AI.

walrus01 5y ago

> The gun utilized satellites to calculate its shots. highly doubtful. More likely it was something like a good quality camera fitted to a scope, outputting around 1.5 to 2 Mbps H264 or H265 4:2:0 color space video, with a data link over satellite to a remote controller. Some person staring at a screen with ability to pan and tilt the weapon.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
The article states > The gun itself was connected to an Israeli command center via a satellite communication relay. There an operative was able to control the gun and take aim at its target via a computer screen. Seems I misread that.
nisegami 5y ago
Trying to imagine how this would feel different from a video game if you didn't know better and coming up pretty short.
ethbr0 5y ago
The key "AI" contribution, after you dig down through all the media misunderstanding, appears to be this: [NYT]> The time it took for the camera images to reach the sniper and for the sniper’s response to reach the machine gun, not including his reaction time, was estimated to be 1.6 seconds, enough of a lag for the best-aimed shot to go astray. So aiming and firing was initiated by a human, but hardware and software attempted to mask the time delay in doing so against a moving vehicle. Which seems plausible: optical flow + basic vehicle vector and velocity calculations. There's also some stuff in the various articles about facial recognition, but that sounds a bit far fetched and unreliable. If you have a person in the loop with enough resolution to accurately aim, then why are you running facial recognition to discriminate targets?
- antegamisou 5y ago
  Pretty sure this is entirely based on classical optimal control theory. But hey good luck getting any clicks with that instead of good ol' AI.