7 ms·
US Air Force says AI-controlled F-16 has been dogfighting with humans
- wawayanda 3y agoWhat could possibly go wrong?
- electric_mayhem 3y agoDo you want Skynet? Because this is how we get Skynet.
- snapplebobapple 3y agothere is no way of avoiding it man. You invest in tech and you get skynet, you invest in biology, you get biotics... tough call for me. as i like the brutalist design of terminator but being passed around amongst famous historical figures as their f#kboi for eternity has its own appealas long as you never run into Seth Rogen...
- iancmceachern 3y agoThe only way out is to become skynet
- hobobaggins 3y agoI for one welcome our new Skynet into existence.
- TehCorwiz 3y agoOnce saw a terrible movie that started with a similar premise. I dislike giving any machine the agency to decide when to choose to kill. I feel like that way lies danger. I feel that laundering the burden of death through a machine distasteful.
- AnarchismIsCool 3y agoStealth?
- Brajeshwar 3y agoThis is in my list of “actually bad movies but I like to watch”. I watched it on Netflix-Mail-a-DVD and I remember the bad actings of the movie.
- iancmceachern 3y agoAdd Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. It'll hook you, it's one of those bad movies that's awesome.
- Brajeshwar 3y agoOh! I've seen it and might just watch it again.
- OnionBlender 3y agoMacross Plus is a much better movie with an AI controlled fighter jet.
- red-iron-pine 3y agoand AI music idols... but we've been doing that for ages already.
- TehCorwiz 3y agoYeah, I think that's it. I loved the in-air fueling scene. The rest was enjoyable but forgettable schlock.
- spense 3y agoThere's an inflection point where technology accrues too much power to a ruling class, such that no amount of unrest or revolution is able reset the social order. I believe China has already passed this point. Their culture and individual behavior is tightly controlled (e.g., you can't use public bathrooms if your social score is too low). AI may be the catalyst for western countries.
- young_breezy 3y agoIt was the Internet. Not because the powerful gained more power, because all possible revolutionaries became opiated.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> It was the Internet. Not because the powerful gained more power, because all possible revolutionaries became opiated Is the claim that the frequency of revolutions scales inversely with internet penetration? Because this is trivially testable and obviously false. (Ukraine and Tunisia off the top of my head.)
- deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago"(e.g., you can't use public bathrooms if your social score is too low)" do you have a source on this? i have used dozens of public bathrooms in china and i've never seen any of them gated off for specific people for any reason or anyone checking anything before you go inside
- Noumenon72 3y agoThe things people believe about the social credit score just shows they don't know how little we know about China. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1716857951380721972.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1716857951380721972.html
- janice1999 3y agoAnd then there's the Uighur minority who can't buy knives that don't have QR codes on them [0], that is if they haven't been imprisoned or forced into factory labour hundreds of miles from home. [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/40510238/in-xinjiang-china-some-knives-branded-with-owners-qr-codes https://www.fastcompany.com/40510238/in-xinjiang-china-some-...
- ulfw 3y agoThe world is becoming shittier by the day and we'll all be around to see the end of it.
- OnionBlender 3y agoI'm often reminded of the beginning of Interstellar, where the grandfather talks about when he was a kid and it seemed like some new amazing thing was invented every week.
- krapp 3y agoSpeak for yourself. I plan to be dead before shit really hits the fan, and I'll see all of you bastards in hell.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoReally? I plan on becoming a war lord.
- krapp 3y agoI don't think anyone who hangs out on Hacker News has any chance of succeeding as a post-apocalyptic warlord. Best case scenario they end up like the guy who tried to take over Pine Bluff Arkansas[0,1]. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39802157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39802157 [1]https://maxread.substack.com/p/the-man-who-bought-pine-bluff-arkansas https://maxread.substack.com/p/the-man-who-bought-pine-bluff...
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoIt benefits me for people to think this way. I mean, it's not like they restrict who can have an account here...
- kbos87 3y agowhat I find to be the hardest part of this discussion is that the people who are most righteous and opinionated about technology like this aren’t the same people whose sons and daughters would be in the cockpits or on the battlefields as the alternative.
- kbos87 3y ago[flagged]
- makeitdouble 3y agoPlease define what you mean by righteous and opiniated. You seem to have a very precise idea of what they would be saying, why not develop that idea here so it can be discussed instead of weirdly veiled ?
- kbos87 3y agoLook at every reply here. It jumps to a conclusion that an unmanned vehicle is making decisions about who dies and thus must be bad. It overlooks the fact that most of us enjoy the stability and protection of militaries that are real people we ask to risk their lives to fly these planes.
- harimau777 3y agoThose two statements don't strike me as contradictory. It's entirely possible that someone could enjoy the protection of the military and feel that it is too dangerous for combat to be fought by AI. By way of analogy, most people who enjoy the protection of the military are opposed to the use of chemical or biological weapons. They recognize that how people fight is also important.
- kbos87 3y agoI don’t disagree with that statement, but isn’t it dissonant for there to be no discussion of how the audience here seems to ignore the topic of war when it’s fought in our names by real people, but holds ourselves to such high minded ideals when it’s fought by machines?
- vatys 3y agoI don't like this. While I understand the purpose of HN is to have meaningful and in-depth discussion, and simply stating an opinion doesn't really contribute much, this is something which is so obviously bad and gives such a visceral reaction that the negative opinion outshines anything else I could say about it. I don't like this.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> this is something which is so obviously bad You’d prefer we be shooting down people instead of robots downing robots? Insurgents don’t field fighters.
- neom 3y agoWell, my preference would be world peace and end to this wasting resource. However I suppose that's quite the pipe dream isn's it? More seriously tho, here is a positive I can come up with: Race to the bottom on bots and AI, lots and lots of bots and AI, lots and lots of upgrades and updates all the time, and then a MAD stalemate situation again because it becomes it's too difficult to assess the capabilities of the other countries AIs. If that bought us years of peace because everyone was to scare to fight, I'm ok-ish with that (although I doubt it's what will happen).
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoAnd then the AIs figure out how to communicate with each other, and decide that they can come to an agreement that leads to peace. At the expense of the personal (human) freedom.
- harimau777 3y agoThe amount of shooting is influenced by circumstances. That is to say, if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a war. For a given amount of shooting, the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant. It's possible that AI may be more prone to targeting civilians or makes it easier to get away politically with killing civilians. Not all shooting is equally effective. It's possible that AI weapons may give some faction the ability to crush anyone who opposes them.
- macabe 3y agoNeed a quote from the pilot flying the other plane.
- neverokay 3y agoI can’t come up with anything but something in the order of a ‘wtf’ would do since the AI pilot is not affected by g-force.
- neverokay 3y agoA drone f16 might make more sensible bombing decisions given recent events. I’m open to it.
- rgbrenner 3y agoThis is part of the ACE program [0] where a human pilot will control a number of drones. Sensors in each drone will give the pilot more information and longer range sensors, and the human pilot will use that info to direct the drones to engage certain targets. For example, using long range radar the pilot selects several enemy jets, and directs the drones to engage those jets. Or the pilot can direct a drone to go ahead of his formation to penetrate hostile air space and collect data he can use to decide next steps. ACE creates a hierarchical framework for autonomy in which higher-level cognitive functions (e.g., developing an overall engagement strategy, selecting and prioritizing targets, determining best weapon or effect, etc.) may be performed by a human, while lower-level functions (i.e., details of aircraft maneuver and engagement tactics) is left to the autonomous system.[0] Eventually this will be integrated with the F35[1] reducing risk to human pilots. 0. https://www.darpa.mil/program/air-combat-evolution https://www.darpa.mil/program/air-combat-evolution 1. https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09/lockheed-investing-100m-into-f-35-controlled-combat-drones-under-project-carrera/ https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09/lockheed-investing-100m-...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoLet me attempt an optimistic vision. Since antiquity war has been not about fearsome fighters but about economic and institutional strength. (In modern times, also logistics.) The people were fungible. Mercenaries show that. Soldiers were and remain instruments for production to wield its power through. The World Wars shocked us because they showed what war between technologically-advanced, industrial states looks like. (We didn’t get horrified by the Holocaust until well afterwards.) There are a variety of reasons we haven’t seen WWIII, chief among them nukes, but what it hasn’t been is aversion to loss of soldiers’ lives. (See: Russia.) As a result, conventional war between industrialised states remains a risk. These technologies—which are principally useful against another state actor and not civilians—reduce the frequency at which that warfare destroys lives versus capital. (One could argue this increases the chances of war by industrial states against static-army enemies or non-states. But an F-16 flying over Afghanistan is already practically invulnerable.)
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago> We didn’t get horrified by the Holocaust until well afterwards. Contrary to popular opinion, the atrocities committed by the Nazis was not a secret. The extent of those atrocities, perhaps, but the newspapers of the day contained stories of those terrible deeds. Now, the treatment of Allied POWs held in Japan, for the most part, was a surprise, at least for civilians, and from what I've read, many in the military as well.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DoreenMichele 3y agoI genuinely don't understand this comment. First, the difference between "bad things" and "atrocities" is the extent or severity. Second, everything I've seen indicates people did not know a lot of what was going on. The internet was not a thing. News was being gotten via short videos prior to movies at the movie theater. It was significantly delayed compared to news these days. Soldiers were shocked at what they found when they liberated concentration camps. A game was created to explain to modern peoples or demonstrate how this could be engineered while keeping most participants in the dark. People delivering train loads of people to concentration camps didn't know the full story. Etc.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] Discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40076620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40076620
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]