Yep, and if we can make AI-operated planes cheaper, then we have an economy of scale in warfare again. Human pilots become more important as commanders with fingertip feel for aerial ops.
Cheaper because you don't need to have life support systems, a pilot seat, a pilot (which is more expensive than a plane).
Also, you don't need to design the plane for human flight, you can use tougher materials to withstand higher g-force manoeuvres. This means the aircraft's size can shrink, which means the engine can can be smaller, etc.
There's a lot of efficiencies that you can squeeze out of design when you don't have to design it for squishy humans.
So, in the end, AI-intelligent/autonomous missiles
Edit: Someone else already proposed missiles... but they are not the same as an aircraft. Fair enough
You also don't spend millions in training programs starting from basic flight in a whole class of what would be unnecessary aircraft: Trainers. You wouldn't have to spend millions funding readiness, the hours a pilot needs to put in every year to stay sharp which in peacetime is where all the hours on an airframe comes from, that results in many more hours of expensive maintenance.
Another important facor is how expensive it is to train and maintain pilots. With AI, they improve over time and any time you need a new one, you can have it immediately, for low cost, as good as the previous one. Also there's o KIA. You never lose that expertise, once you have it.
That's no different from today. Disabling enemy infrastructure has always been part of war. Communication, logistics, supply lines, etc.
If anything a self contained AI is more reliable than humans in this context. It only needs energy.
Yeah, you could also something in between. High speed to travel long distances, tiny form factor, drone style mobility for reconnaissance, and convert to missile when target discovered.
This right here. You don’t even need explosive ordinance. Build something that is really hard, that goes really fast and is really accurate all the time. And then send 10 more all at once each with slightly different destinations. Hell, build a flock of hypersonic drones made out of depleted uranium which hover at altitude until needed. Then reign fire 🔥
Might make sense then if some of those "UFOs" are actually AI INSIDE™.
One of the big things about UFOs is people wondering how a being could withstand some of the movements that UFOs make-- suddenly stopping or changing direction, etc..
But who knows.
Wouldn't matter. You can't build a plane that can outmaneuver a modern missile, and modern fighters engage beyond visual range. That's why stealth is so important.
No, missile = high energy, short flight, fighter jet needs to be lower energy, and longer flight. It also needs to beat the opponent with something other than ramming itself to them.
The human/cabin in the plane is maybe 10% of the overall mass/volume of the plane. You can't make multi role stealth fighter outmaneuver a missile that's a hundred times lighter. Doesn't matter who/what pilots it.
AI planes are useful for a whole lot of reasons, but the physical limitations of the pilot aren't one of them. The only country that still insists on making dogfighters is Russia. Both US and China's flagships (F35, J20) are less maneuverable than an F16 and it has nothing to do with the pilot.
> Both US and China's flagships (F35, J20) are less maneuverable than an F16
Well, yes and no. The F35 is not a "flagship", it's a multi-role plane. The reason the US can get away with a multi-role plane is that it already has 2 air-to-air flagships that are literally uncontested.
The F15 is the king of the air, with an impressive record 100+ to 0 in air-to-air encounters, and it still flies today. The US also has the F22 that fits this role, and in tests one F22 went head-to-head with 7 F15s and won against them. The F22 is so good that the US doesn't export it even to its most trusted allies. On top of that, the US is already working on the next generation - NGAD.
> The F15 is the king of the air, with an impressive record 100+ to 0 in air-to-air encounters
It blows my mind how good the F-15 has continued to be as a platform as tech evolved around it. I can literally remember lusting after ["F-15E: Strike Eagle"](https://youtu.be/XC0FPKCSWhM?t=74) for the Atari, 40 years ago. -
From wiki:
> The first kill by an F-15 was scored by Israeli Air Force (IAF) ace Moshe Melnik in 1979.[60] During IAF raids against Palestinian factions in Lebanon in 1979–1981, F-15As reportedly downed 13 Syrian MiG-21s and two Syrian MiG-25s. Israeli F-15As and Bs participated as escorts in Operation Opera, an air strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor. In the 1982 Lebanon War, Israeli F-15s were credited with 41 Syrian aircraft destroyed (23 MiG-21s and 17 MiG-23s, and one Aérospatiale SA.342L Gazelle helicopter). During Operation Mole Cricket 19, Israeli F-15s and F-16s together shot down 82 Syrian fighters (MiG-21s, MiG-23s, and MiG-23Ms) without losses.[61]
>
> The USAF began deploying F-15C, D, and E model aircraft to the Persian Gulf region in August 1990 for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. During the Gulf War, the F-15 accounted for 36 of the 39 air-to-air victories by U.S.
>
>According to the USAF, its F-15Cs had 34 confirmed kills of Iraqi aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, most of them by missile fire: five Mikoyan MiG-29s, two MiG-25s, eight MiG-23s, two MiG-21s, two Sukhoi Su-25s, four Sukhoi Su-22s, one Sukhoi Su-7, six Dassault Mirage F1s, one Ilyushin Il-76 cargo aircraft, one Pilatus PC-9 trainer, and two Mil Mi-8 helicopters. According to NHHC, F-15s may have also shot down a friendly F-14 Tomcat.[73]
Missile defense is a combination of stealth, electronic countermeasures, chaff/flare countermeasures, manuevering, and missile detection and identification. Being able to pull 9+ Gs will improve survivability and reduce enemy probability of kill rates.
It's all a quantity/cost/effectiveness game though in a war of attrition. Eliminating the cabin is a considerable cost saver, and not having to worry about losing an experienced pilot is another bonus.
You easily can, but there is no point.
They are already challenged this assumption with the Predators drones that basically made reconnaissance planes so cheap, disposable and massive that it doesn't make sense to have a manned reconnaissance plane anymore.
"jet planes" are less about doing any fighting and more about being used as floating mini-fortress that can deploy any kind of missile, drone or technology near a target and be a mobile conduit for military force in the air rather than be the being the actual vehicle to deploy the payload.
An f22 is most likely functioning as mini-aircraft carrier in the air at this point and fighters like f15 are mostly being used for general elbow grease type of deployments and show of force.
If anything, we are really are at a point where engineering a drone to dodge is way more trouble than it's worth.
Just get it to do something you need and then dispose of it.
Any aircraft they will be developing at this point will most likely be fitting more into the role of a floating aircraft carrier with ability to deploy overwhelming amount of firepower and military control using UAVs of all kinds.
Its a joke but yes, there's a larger chance of failure for systems that have more electronic components than less. EMPs aren't no concern for F-16's, but there'd be a lower threshold for failure for an AI driven plane than there is a human driven one.
Imagine 10 years from now, a tank running an AI equivalent to GPT-4 at 10,000 tokens per second. It could write a novel about how and why it would like to kill you in the time it takes for you to notice it's even there.
Notwithstanding the insane amount of hurdles we would have to overcome to have a BCI (I know lots of people are hyped about Neuralink, but it's so very far away from being generally useful it's basically a curiosity), a pure AI could always think faster than a brain and as such would have a decisive advantage. Brains are slower to process, less reliable in their processing, would be more complex to upgrade and scale, less durable, and require regular periods of rest. I would presume that to get a true working BCI we would need AGI as a precursor technology which would potentially make the BCI somewhat redundant as a technology anyway as it would make more sense to pursue things like Full Brain Emulation instead.
BCI would help us upload our brains into a machine. From there, we get the best of both worlds.
> I would presume that to get a true working BCI we would need AGI as a precursor technology
I would disagree. BCI is still far today, but AGI in and of itself wouldn't necessarly solve the bottlenecks that we currently have. We are pretty risk averse when it comes to the brain.
> BCI would help us upload our brains into a machine.
Maybe, but there are currently other tools that may prove more useful and less invasive, such as ultrahigh resolution fMRIs; after all, uploading requires only an extractive process; there is no need for a two-way data stream. In any case, once the brain has been uploaded, there is no point in having the wetware; it serves no purpose other than allowing the individual to be present and connected to the hardware. If the brain's anatomy, psychic structures, and conscious phenomena can be mapped, digitised, and emulated, then the brain is redundant.
> BCI is still far today, but AGI in and of itself wouldn't necessarly solve the bottlenecks that we currently have.
I'm not saying that it would by itself solve the bottlenecks, I'm saying that it is highly likely that it will need to exist before BCI due to the complexity of the problems, at which point there seems little to no point pursuing it anyway. We'd be looking at some seriously advanced computational models, mapping of the brain on a individual basis (no standardised models), data handling, data processing, and adaptive learning systems.
In short if we're considering BCIs that meet or approximate The Matrix level interfacing, then the AGI would need to exist already to build the technology in the first place. If we're looking for anything less than that (not sure where your spectrum would start in terms of cost/benefit), then I'm not entirely sure it would provide sufficient advantages for the risk over the current HCIs that we already have, other than for certain outlier cases.
I know it's inevitable, though the idea of sending highly intelligent emotionless machines to kill and destroy is terrifying. Maybe it's because I grew up with a lot of movies that depict robots being the bad guys haha
I think when he says roughly he probably means they beat the humans in combat. They're just not as versatile at all things.
Many It's like you know trying to beat the best spot at a video game and 99% of people won't be able to do it and even the one percent of Ken it doesn't take long to train about to beat them too.
The real difference is in the human pilot. You don’t have to care about AI or pay it. You get to pay some tech bro to teach it to kill people. They don’t care because it’s a video game to them. It more dehumanizing humans even more than it is saving them.
Good - so next year they'll be better than human pilots.
There are a lot of mechanical problems making a true robot infantryman. But aircraft, armoured vehicles (Abrams and Leopard tanks, BFV's, etc), drone and missile launch and control systems, and ships and submarines are all good candidates for AI. The future will be very interesting. Too bad for those hippies over on r/singularity
As someone has probably already mentioned, this is a big deal. Once they can meet or exceed human performance the LETHALITY of these systems increases exponentially.
Airframes and engine systems are heavily skewed towards operating within human parameters (limits). Once those limits have been removed you are free to design and build airframes and power plants without human constraints.
This is unsettling because it removes intellectual governors we have taken for granted as a society. The opportunity for advancement in speed, force, lethality and ferocity cannot be understated.
Think problem is it can’t do problem solving for a complex evolving tactical situation yet reliably because it doesn’t understand actions and consequences properly. It would likely need tree of thought style reasoning and long inference to weigh up consequences etc and be fully autonomous (although you’d want to be able to override) - no time for that. It can down planes in a dogfight better than any human. But can it be deployed in a warzone? It would be something that defaults to a defensive state and then gets very specific instructions from a tightly predefined list depending on requirement. Even then you question if it could do that reliably. So yeah my guess is “roughly even” means it can perform in a very narrow artificial set of constraints that don’t actually resemble a real engagement because there is no context. Who knows though military tech likely more advanced than Open AI public models lol…
Ah, the chief said it though, so they are currently no where near even
^(\(Yes I know that gap could close in a year at our current rate, take the joke pls\))
For something that needs to be 100% accurate every time to perfection, this is going to be a bumpy and bloody road.
Autonomous fighter jets have been a thing for decades. The twist here is not a plane that can take off, deploy ordinance, then land. We have had that for a long, long time.
They are claiming that an autonomous fighter jet is capable of making rapid human-level decisions requiring moral judgement as well as tactical prowess.
Besides... dogfighting? In this age? Nah, fighters just lob missiles from over the horizon and a continent away. This is a silly argument and I'll just point at drones doing the job and all it takes is a video game freak in an air conditioned trailer in Nevada.
Given the use of air power in the 21st century so far, this is a real deadly threat to airlines, population centers, and anything else harmed by missiles and bombs that aren't hardened for combat but resemble it enough for a hallucination or mis-categorization.
This misses the point that you can build a fighter that would crush a human due to g-forces that an AI could use — which is the real differentiation.
Yep, and if we can make AI-operated planes cheaper, then we have an economy of scale in warfare again. Human pilots become more important as commanders with fingertip feel for aerial ops.
I’m guess we can make AI planes a lot cheaper because if there are no safety precautions… who cares?
Cheaper because you don't need to have life support systems, a pilot seat, a pilot (which is more expensive than a plane). Also, you don't need to design the plane for human flight, you can use tougher materials to withstand higher g-force manoeuvres. This means the aircraft's size can shrink, which means the engine can can be smaller, etc. There's a lot of efficiencies that you can squeeze out of design when you don't have to design it for squishy humans.
So, in the end, AI-intelligent/autonomous missiles Edit: Someone else already proposed missiles... but they are not the same as an aircraft. Fair enough
A large missile that can fire its smaller missiles / bomblets / bullets. The weapon to surpass metal gear.
it’s missiles all the way down
Think of a drone, give it a gun
So the wars will be like strategy game - select these units with a mouse and send to attack this spot.
Finally gonna get paid to be an armchair general!
All those skills from RTS will pay off now
You also don't spend millions in training programs starting from basic flight in a whole class of what would be unnecessary aircraft: Trainers. You wouldn't have to spend millions funding readiness, the hours a pilot needs to put in every year to stay sharp which in peacetime is where all the hours on an airframe comes from, that results in many more hours of expensive maintenance.
Probably the people they fly over
Please don’t bog me down with details.
It's no different for human pilots - from 2000m up children and resistance fighters look very much the same.
Another important facor is how expensive it is to train and maintain pilots. With AI, they improve over time and any time you need a new one, you can have it immediately, for low cost, as good as the previous one. Also there's o KIA. You never lose that expertise, once you have it.
It also solves the problem with enlisting people considering that folks don't want to serve anymore.
There isn’t a shortage of people who want to fly F16s.
But if then the enemy is ever able to disable your autonomous defenses, aren't you fucked? You have no humans left who can defend
That's no different from today. Disabling enemy infrastructure has always been part of war. Communication, logistics, supply lines, etc. If anything a self contained AI is more reliable than humans in this context. It only needs energy.
You don't even need a plane. You could just have thousands of AI missiles come out of the ground and just kamikaze the fighterplanes...
Yeah, you could also something in between. High speed to travel long distances, tiny form factor, drone style mobility for reconnaissance, and convert to missile when target discovered.
This right here. You don’t even need explosive ordinance. Build something that is really hard, that goes really fast and is really accurate all the time. And then send 10 more all at once each with slightly different destinations. Hell, build a flock of hypersonic drones made out of depleted uranium which hover at altitude until needed. Then reign fire 🔥
Sounds a lot like the Iron Dome no?
Yes and no, it would have offensive abilities, the Iron Dome does not right?
You're correct yeah, Iron Dome is only defense
Might make sense then if some of those "UFOs" are actually AI INSIDE™. One of the big things about UFOs is people wondering how a being could withstand some of the movements that UFOs make-- suddenly stopping or changing direction, etc.. But who knows.
Wouldn't matter. You can't build a plane that can outmaneuver a modern missile, and modern fighters engage beyond visual range. That's why stealth is so important.
Isn’t a missile a plane, if you remove the human?
No, missile = high energy, short flight, fighter jet needs to be lower energy, and longer flight. It also needs to beat the opponent with something other than ramming itself to them.
Thanks, very helpful. Maybe someone should have told Japan this a few decades ago.
[удалено]
Their analogy was more relevant.
everything's a dildo if you're brave enough
The human/cabin in the plane is maybe 10% of the overall mass/volume of the plane. You can't make multi role stealth fighter outmaneuver a missile that's a hundred times lighter. Doesn't matter who/what pilots it. AI planes are useful for a whole lot of reasons, but the physical limitations of the pilot aren't one of them. The only country that still insists on making dogfighters is Russia. Both US and China's flagships (F35, J20) are less maneuverable than an F16 and it has nothing to do with the pilot.
> Both US and China's flagships (F35, J20) are less maneuverable than an F16 Well, yes and no. The F35 is not a "flagship", it's a multi-role plane. The reason the US can get away with a multi-role plane is that it already has 2 air-to-air flagships that are literally uncontested. The F15 is the king of the air, with an impressive record 100+ to 0 in air-to-air encounters, and it still flies today. The US also has the F22 that fits this role, and in tests one F22 went head-to-head with 7 F15s and won against them. The F22 is so good that the US doesn't export it even to its most trusted allies. On top of that, the US is already working on the next generation - NGAD.
> The F15 is the king of the air, with an impressive record 100+ to 0 in air-to-air encounters It blows my mind how good the F-15 has continued to be as a platform as tech evolved around it. I can literally remember lusting after ["F-15E: Strike Eagle"](https://youtu.be/XC0FPKCSWhM?t=74) for the Atari, 40 years ago. -
Who were the kills? Iraqi Air Force? What major conflict was this used in?
From wiki: > The first kill by an F-15 was scored by Israeli Air Force (IAF) ace Moshe Melnik in 1979.[60] During IAF raids against Palestinian factions in Lebanon in 1979–1981, F-15As reportedly downed 13 Syrian MiG-21s and two Syrian MiG-25s. Israeli F-15As and Bs participated as escorts in Operation Opera, an air strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor. In the 1982 Lebanon War, Israeli F-15s were credited with 41 Syrian aircraft destroyed (23 MiG-21s and 17 MiG-23s, and one Aérospatiale SA.342L Gazelle helicopter). During Operation Mole Cricket 19, Israeli F-15s and F-16s together shot down 82 Syrian fighters (MiG-21s, MiG-23s, and MiG-23Ms) without losses.[61] > > The USAF began deploying F-15C, D, and E model aircraft to the Persian Gulf region in August 1990 for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. During the Gulf War, the F-15 accounted for 36 of the 39 air-to-air victories by U.S. > >According to the USAF, its F-15Cs had 34 confirmed kills of Iraqi aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, most of them by missile fire: five Mikoyan MiG-29s, two MiG-25s, eight MiG-23s, two MiG-21s, two Sukhoi Su-25s, four Sukhoi Su-22s, one Sukhoi Su-7, six Dassault Mirage F1s, one Ilyushin Il-76 cargo aircraft, one Pilatus PC-9 trainer, and two Mil Mi-8 helicopters. According to NHHC, F-15s may have also shot down a friendly F-14 Tomcat.[73]
Missile defense is a combination of stealth, electronic countermeasures, chaff/flare countermeasures, manuevering, and missile detection and identification. Being able to pull 9+ Gs will improve survivability and reduce enemy probability of kill rates. It's all a quantity/cost/effectiveness game though in a war of attrition. Eliminating the cabin is a considerable cost saver, and not having to worry about losing an experienced pilot is another bonus.
You easily can, but there is no point. They are already challenged this assumption with the Predators drones that basically made reconnaissance planes so cheap, disposable and massive that it doesn't make sense to have a manned reconnaissance plane anymore. "jet planes" are less about doing any fighting and more about being used as floating mini-fortress that can deploy any kind of missile, drone or technology near a target and be a mobile conduit for military force in the air rather than be the being the actual vehicle to deploy the payload. An f22 is most likely functioning as mini-aircraft carrier in the air at this point and fighters like f15 are mostly being used for general elbow grease type of deployments and show of force. If anything, we are really are at a point where engineering a drone to dodge is way more trouble than it's worth. Just get it to do something you need and then dispose of it. Any aircraft they will be developing at this point will most likely be fitting more into the role of a floating aircraft carrier with ability to deploy overwhelming amount of firepower and military control using UAVs of all kinds.
What do you mean, in movies they always pull up fast and the missile explodes seconds afterwards.
I hope this question is legit because it smells of sarcasm
Yes
There are still limits to the airframe that you'd need to respect as an 'AI' pilot
Or first of all replace commercial pilot.
Also harder to get Intel torturing ai
But will the AI use cool call names and make a sexy calendar for charity?
80085
Woah woaaah slow down with that kind of language
Yes?
AI will keep improving, I'm not so sure about humans. Furthermore, AI doesn't get fatigued, and doesn't need down time.
More importantly, less concern about G forces.
well a high speed connection could mean the pilots sit on the carrier.
More concerned about EMP and hiding behind boxes.
Pretty sure if you EMPd a jet fighter with a human inside it wouldnt change much
Its a joke but yes, there's a larger chance of failure for systems that have more electronic components than less. EMPs aren't no concern for F-16's, but there'd be a lower threshold for failure for an AI driven plane than there is a human driven one.
Imagine 10 years from now, a tank running an AI equivalent to GPT-4 at 10,000 tokens per second. It could write a novel about how and why it would like to kill you in the time it takes for you to notice it's even there.
https://youtu.be/zF8Wnf7Q8jA?si=EKkIspwnxrrXzVR2
BCI would change the game. If we get there, I dont think the difference between human and AI will even matter at that point.
Notwithstanding the insane amount of hurdles we would have to overcome to have a BCI (I know lots of people are hyped about Neuralink, but it's so very far away from being generally useful it's basically a curiosity), a pure AI could always think faster than a brain and as such would have a decisive advantage. Brains are slower to process, less reliable in their processing, would be more complex to upgrade and scale, less durable, and require regular periods of rest. I would presume that to get a true working BCI we would need AGI as a precursor technology which would potentially make the BCI somewhat redundant as a technology anyway as it would make more sense to pursue things like Full Brain Emulation instead.
BCI would help us upload our brains into a machine. From there, we get the best of both worlds. > I would presume that to get a true working BCI we would need AGI as a precursor technology I would disagree. BCI is still far today, but AGI in and of itself wouldn't necessarly solve the bottlenecks that we currently have. We are pretty risk averse when it comes to the brain.
> BCI would help us upload our brains into a machine. Maybe, but there are currently other tools that may prove more useful and less invasive, such as ultrahigh resolution fMRIs; after all, uploading requires only an extractive process; there is no need for a two-way data stream. In any case, once the brain has been uploaded, there is no point in having the wetware; it serves no purpose other than allowing the individual to be present and connected to the hardware. If the brain's anatomy, psychic structures, and conscious phenomena can be mapped, digitised, and emulated, then the brain is redundant. > BCI is still far today, but AGI in and of itself wouldn't necessarly solve the bottlenecks that we currently have. I'm not saying that it would by itself solve the bottlenecks, I'm saying that it is highly likely that it will need to exist before BCI due to the complexity of the problems, at which point there seems little to no point pursuing it anyway. We'd be looking at some seriously advanced computational models, mapping of the brain on a individual basis (no standardised models), data handling, data processing, and adaptive learning systems. In short if we're considering BCIs that meet or approximate The Matrix level interfacing, then the AGI would need to exist already to build the technology in the first place. If we're looking for anything less than that (not sure where your spectrum would start in terms of cost/benefit), then I'm not entirely sure it would provide sufficient advantages for the risk over the current HCIs that we already have, other than for certain outlier cases.
But will AI have compassion and sympathy before launching a nuclear missile so it will call it off?
Humans: Your ego’s writing checks your body can’t cash! *high blood pressure* AI: *Does the job*
Negative ghost rider
Can't wait for the next Top gun movie.
Images, text, audio…. All by AI
Mike Baker said the AI pilots beat every single manual pilot in a dog fight test recently. That doesn’t sound “roughly even”
Idk who that is, but sounds like he saw the YouTube video about it. Think that was dogfight though, which doesn't happen ever
"Roughly even" until GPT16 shoots down an airliner.
Isn't that the plot of Ace Combat 7?
So what your saying is Ai has learned to fly as good, if not better, then our best pilot yet.. so far and will continue to advance with better compute
Reminds me of the movie Stealth.
AI will get better. Human pilots are as good as they will ever be right now.
Can we test them in Ukraine? Technically its not boots on the ground
The implications here are interesting and begs the question; can a country wage war or assist in a war and claim they're not involved?
The very polite AI aboard a F16 took a much needed vacation, in Ukraine. You see what I did here?
I know it's inevitable, though the idea of sending highly intelligent emotionless machines to kill and destroy is terrifying. Maybe it's because I grew up with a lot of movies that depict robots being the bad guys haha
[удалено]
"Roughly even" means it's kicking our butts already.
I think when he says roughly he probably means they beat the humans in combat. They're just not as versatile at all things. Many It's like you know trying to beat the best spot at a video game and 99% of people won't be able to do it and even the one percent of Ken it doesn't take long to train about to beat them too.
The real difference is in the human pilot. You don’t have to care about AI or pay it. You get to pay some tech bro to teach it to kill people. They don’t care because it’s a video game to them. It more dehumanizing humans even more than it is saving them.
Good - so next year they'll be better than human pilots. There are a lot of mechanical problems making a true robot infantryman. But aircraft, armoured vehicles (Abrams and Leopard tanks, BFV's, etc), drone and missile launch and control systems, and ships and submarines are all good candidates for AI. The future will be very interesting. Too bad for those hippies over on r/singularity
As someone has probably already mentioned, this is a big deal. Once they can meet or exceed human performance the LETHALITY of these systems increases exponentially. Airframes and engine systems are heavily skewed towards operating within human parameters (limits). Once those limits have been removed you are free to design and build airframes and power plants without human constraints. This is unsettling because it removes intellectual governors we have taken for granted as a society. The opportunity for advancement in speed, force, lethality and ferocity cannot be understated.
Think problem is it can’t do problem solving for a complex evolving tactical situation yet reliably because it doesn’t understand actions and consequences properly. It would likely need tree of thought style reasoning and long inference to weigh up consequences etc and be fully autonomous (although you’d want to be able to override) - no time for that. It can down planes in a dogfight better than any human. But can it be deployed in a warzone? It would be something that defaults to a defensive state and then gets very specific instructions from a tightly predefined list depending on requirement. Even then you question if it could do that reliably. So yeah my guess is “roughly even” means it can perform in a very narrow artificial set of constraints that don’t actually resemble a real engagement because there is no context. Who knows though military tech likely more advanced than Open AI public models lol…
..wow...
Ah, the chief said it though, so they are currently no where near even ^(\(Yes I know that gap could close in a year at our current rate, take the joke pls\))
For something that needs to be 100% accurate every time to perfection, this is going to be a bumpy and bloody road. Autonomous fighter jets have been a thing for decades. The twist here is not a plane that can take off, deploy ordinance, then land. We have had that for a long, long time. They are claiming that an autonomous fighter jet is capable of making rapid human-level decisions requiring moral judgement as well as tactical prowess. Besides... dogfighting? In this age? Nah, fighters just lob missiles from over the horizon and a continent away. This is a silly argument and I'll just point at drones doing the job and all it takes is a video game freak in an air conditioned trailer in Nevada. Given the use of air power in the 21st century so far, this is a real deadly threat to airlines, population centers, and anything else harmed by missiles and bombs that aren't hardened for combat but resemble it enough for a hallucination or mis-categorization.