Última edición:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Iniciador del tema SeniorFuckFace
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Estado
namelesstacotruck
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 9 de Jul, 2020
The 90 percent rule kicks in for ai and air combat.
Most missions are pretty simple. Lets use one example. Wild Weasel missions. Have robot fly over and bomb x coordinates, if it gets target locked do x and y. The SAM battery its fighting might already be on automatic mode too. Because no human it can do better evasion. Also no human is good because its high risk. If it does something stupid its over enemy territory already. I foresee this being first allowed use case.
Air patrol. Fly around if you see thing you dont recognize shoot it. Human slows all of that down.
Air truck work. Go to x place. Get stuff put in. Fly to Y place.
Aerial refueling. Ditto.
The areas where a human pilot is needed do exist but its the equivalent of "but what if the 13 year gets raped!" Arguments for abortion. Edge cases. Dont use shitlib argumentation.
Most missions are pretty simple. Lets use one example. Wild Weasel missions. Have robot fly over and bomb x coordinates, if it gets target locked do x and y. The SAM battery its fighting might already be on automatic mode too. Because no human it can do better evasion. Also no human is good because its high risk. If it does something stupid its over enemy territory already. I foresee this being first allowed use case.
Air patrol. Fly around if you see thing you dont recognize shoot it. Human slows all of that down.
Air truck work. Go to x place. Get stuff put in. Fly to Y place.
Aerial refueling. Ditto.
The areas where a human pilot is needed do exist but its the equivalent of "but what if the 13 year gets raped!" Arguments for abortion. Edge cases. Dont use shitlib argumentation.
- Registrado
- 29 de Jul, 2024
God existing is too spoopy for some people, I guess.
Flying a jet is more complicated than that. What if the AI can't determine friend or foe? What if the target is visually an enemy but sending friendly signals? What about the opposite? What if there's an instrument error on a high-priority mission that causes the jet to turn back when a human pilot can overcome that instrument error? If your only reply to this is "you're a shitlib" then I don't know what to tell you, slugger.
SpergioLeonne
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Feb, 2022
The best argument I saw was processing time, but I don’t even know how to quantify that. For most things, the computer is going to just be orders of magnitude faster. But yeah, maybe if it was trying to terrain map to fly low, it could get bogged down, things of that nature. And then there’s also probably ways to teach it to limit the amount of information it’s trying to handle, like going low resolution
- Registrado
- 29 de Jul, 2024
Jeffries voted for himself! What a bastard!
- Registrado
- 15 de Dic, 2022
how much of a disaster will it be if Jeffries get the speakership?
Potatoherder
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Jun, 2020
Emmers is McCarthy's butt buddy and is probably partly responsible for controlling Johnson. This seems like revenge against Johnson.
- Registrado
- 29 de Jul, 2024
It will be fucking annoying for sure.
SpergioLeonne
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Feb, 2022
Nothing the Republicans want will ever come to the floor for a vote
I like Massie, but the stakes are too high to make a nihilistic principled stand and fuck over the legislature
namelesstacotruck
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 9 de Jul, 2020
How do human pilots determine friend or foe when fighting beyond visual range? Is it really that much of a decision tree with lots of ambiguity? I am doubtful of that. Also you are assuming a human eyeball can tell make and model better than an ai one for a fast moving plane. Would want evidence of that.
How does the air missile determine friend from foe? The recent Gettysberg incident shows its an existing problem. The goal isnt nonexistent perfection but same or better results.
These are solvable problems and in fact have been solved. Why does the air truck need complex friend or foe identification?
What happens today when this happens? Pretty sure what happens is they call it in and get guidance. And so would the ai. If neither can call it in they fall back to the standing orders and which side to err on. You can also have it default to do nothing.
I am pretty sure most human pilots would result in the same. If they saw a f15 with russian iff they would go back to information from prior briefing and if visual id beat iff. Ai would have rules on which took precedence and would be fed situational data as well. The human pilot would call it in and get guidance. The ai would communicate and get guidance. If no guidance possible then both would default to standing orders for what to do.
Also this edge case happens once and everybody adjusts to it thereafter.
This is the 10 percent use case i talked about. But if you can field 3 ai fighters where you could only field 1 human flown before? And all 3 had instrument issues? Edge case.
There are all kinds of instrument problems that the ai can get through and not the pilot because its not a problem to begin with. F35s have had issues with cockpit pressure and life support systems. The ai fighter wouldnt have to go back because a bird hit the cockpit and made a crack.
But yes for these small cases you can bust out the human pilot. My point isnt that human pilots will go away but they will be a smaller group and the bulk of air missions will be ai.
My fundamental point is if your bringing up tiny edge cases to buttress your argument. Its a weak argument.
- Registrado
- 29 de Jul, 2024
Not this stupid bitch wasting everyone's time to grandstand about colonialism.
- Registrado
- 15 de Nov, 2021
AI is only good at doing things that have been done before. There are lots of times that's useful, but pivotal wars are characterized by times when past performance had little to tell you about future results.
The main problem with AI is it's backward facing. It tends to take a long time to adapt to new situations (only movie AIs learn instantly) and is utterly useless at creating those new situations. Moreover, you just don't get that many chances to fail in war. Imagine AI pilots trained on all the dogfights of WWI taking to the skies to defend Britain in WWII. The RAF would have been utterly destroyed by the Luftwaffe in a week, with zero examples of successful dogfights to learn from. Oh sure, you've got lots of data points now to train your next AI on. Too bad you're out of fighters, Operation Sea Lion is a go, and Britain is now being invaded by the Germans...with, once again, a new tactical situation with no previous examples to learn from.
The 10% use cases are the cases that decide wars.
- Registrado
- 16 de Dic, 2019
This stinky bitch can't even pretend to be American, never redeem:
When Luffy stops laughing, run. When Zoro starts laughing, run.
When Luffy stops laughing, run. When Zoro starts laughing, run.
- Registrado
- 29 de Jul, 2024
Whoa, Chip Roy ended up voting for Johnson after not saying anything in the first call. He said he wouldn't go for Johnson at all.
SpergioLeonne
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Feb, 2022
Most likely radar cross section, those sorts of characteristics. You can see a lot more with low frequency bands than you can lock onto, and you can probably tell what it is by comparing how it reflects a few different frequencies.
Humans are an instrument, too. Really. We probably have a lot higher failure rate when compared side by side to say, an altimeter, depending on how you define failure. Mechanical instruments aren’t subject to hypoxia.
But yeah you covered that.
humans have bias. We tend to ignore our own mistakes if they’re small enough to overlook. But we’re really generalists, and can’t compete with an array of specialist systems
- Registrado
- 29 de Jul, 2024
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Also, looks like there will be a second Speaker vote. 216 for Johnson, 215 for Jeffries, and 3 votes for "other." Round two begins!
Also, is it just me, or does Kamala Harris look more and more like Michael Jackson as she ages?
SpergioLeonne
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Feb, 2022
So are humans, generally. You’re crediting us with implementing new doctrine as it coincides with advances in capabilities.
How long did we sit in trenches for?
Until we could drive over them. Tactics stagnate
- Registrado
- 22 de Nov, 2021
It will be funny and sad if Republican infighting in the House somehow leads to a Democrat-backed Speaker.
- Registrado
- 15 de Nov, 2021
Yes, generally...but it's the exceptions who win, like Rommel deciding to attack through the Ardennes, which had never been done before. Humans are chaos agents, and it's the innovators who win, not the guys who stick to the manual and run things based on how they worked in the past. AI doesn't have exceptions. AI doesn't innovate. AI only replicates the past, over and over.
What's your AI going to do when Rommel's tanks burst through what all past data said was an impenetrable forest? The war is already over.
Potatoherder
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Jun, 2020
That is what you have now with Johnson and Jefferies already said he would support Johnson They have a good thing going. Passing democrat bills and the republicans get all the blame as they had the speakership.
- Estado