3 ms·
Agreed; in fact I think we're already there and the only reason the human pilot hasn't shaken out of the equation is lack of a large-scale war to prove how inef
by ericbarrett 5y ago
Agreed; in fact I think we're already there and the only reason the human pilot hasn't shaken out of the equation is lack of a large-scale war to prove how ineffective they are. If there was such a conflict—and it somehow avoided going nuclear—who would win, the side that can make a few hundred fighters and trained pilots a year, or the side that can crank out 10,000+ drones in a month?
- raducu 5y agoWe could go a step further and think robot infantry soldiers, but airplanes are easier to automate. I'm sure that if the same effort was put into self-driving self-shooting tanks as in teslas, the result would be more than adequate vs humans.
- ericbarrett 5y agoNot robot infantry (we're a long way from that) nor automated tanks (too expensive and bulky) but rather small, cheap, mass-produced hunter-killer drones. Flood an area with them and you could zone out human infantry, without causing the massive damage that artillery or rocket strikes do.
- decafninja 5y agoI am certainly no expert in warfare nor AI, but wouldn't robot tanks (or at least semi-autonomously remotely operated) be much easier and cheaper to do than fighter drones?