Slashdot Mirror
AI Downs 'Top Gun' Pilot In Dogfights (dailymail.co.uk)
schwit1 writes from a report via Daily Mail: [Daily Mail reports:] "The Artificial intelligence (AI) developed by a University of Cincinnati doctoral graduate was recently assessed by retired USAF Colonel Gene Lee -- who holds extensive aerial combat experience as an instructor and Air Battle Manager with considerable fighter aircraft expertise. He took on the software in a simulator. Lee was not able to score a kill after repeated attempts. He was shot out of the air every time during protracted engagements, and according to Lee, is 'the most aggressive, responsive, dynamic and credible AI I've seen to date.'" And why is the US still throwing money at the F35, unless it can be flown without pilots. The AI, dubbed ALPHA, features a genetic fuzzy tree decision-making system, which is a subtype of fuzzy logic algorithms. The system breaks larger tasks into smaller tasks, which include high-level tactics, firing, evasion, and defensiveness. It can calculate the best maneuvers in various, changing environments over 250 times faster than its human opponent can blink. Lee says, "I was surprised at how aware and reactive it was. It seemed to be aware of my intentions and reacting instantly to my changes in flight and my missile deployment. It knew how to defeat the shot I was taking. It moved instantly between defensive and offensive actions as needed."
Translation: he took on the software in its version of reality, with it either being omniscient or having a perfect model of its sensors' deficiencies. While having to work with its presentation of its reality filtered through its presentation devices, limiting the information available to everything the simulator builders considered important enough to bother with and which are actually physically presentable (good luck with proper accelerations, for example).
Completely unsurprising since game bots have been able to outmaneuver human players for decades now. The only thing game bots were lacking was adequate sensor input to gain area awareness in the real world without oversimplified preprocessed maps and precisely placed path nodes.
Maybe, and here's a concept, we can outfit piloted planes with systems to blow this lab environment victor out of the real skies.
Or maybe the fact that human beings can't stand the kind of acceleration levels that have no effect at all on computers will make this whole question moot.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If the drone can pull 20G turns, it's game over for the human pilot.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's worse than that: the AI in this test won when piloting evenly matched planes. But the weak point in modern fighter jet design is the squishy fragile thing in the cockpit, which can't take more than 8 g-s or so, and not even close to that for negative g-forces. Get rid of the pilot, and you can design a plane whose performance is vastly better than a piloted plane. Now put that AI in it and send it head-to-head against an F-35. No contest.
He took on the software in a simulator.
So he was fighting in a computer game, not in a real jet and certainly not in real combat conditions. This is a limited scenario with limited conditions. Keep this in mind.
And why is the US still throwing money at the F35, unless it can be flown without pilots.
See above. There is a HUGE difference between a computer game and flying a real jet in combat conditions. We've had computer "AI" (using the term loosely) that could beat people at games for a long time. That isn't the same thing as having an AI that is ready for real world combat and it is even further from having an AI that is trustworthy on decisions of whether to shoot or not. To the best of my knowledge we do not presently nor are we likely to any time soon have an AI that we can or should trust to make judgements about what to shoot or when to shoot it. It's not clear to me that we ever can or should take humans out of that loop. It might be necessary to take them out of the vehicle physically (what with us being bags of fluid and all) but we'd be idiots to trust any current AI with complete control of combat.
Furthermore an F35 does a lot more than just dog fighting. In fact its primary role is likely to be air to ground combat far more often than air to air. That's why they call it a Strike Fighter. I'm not moving the goal posts here either. Yes it is reasonable that a computer AI could outperform a human in air combat maneuvering. Especially when the jet doesn't have a human on board with the physical limitations of a human, particularly in relation to G forces. We've had jets for decades that can generate more g forces than a human can handle and we've had to artificially limit them. The problem is that we still need humans in the loop for decision making and for the most part that is a good thing. Even our drones don't shoot automatically because we cannot trust them to make appropriate firing decisions in most cases.
It was only a matter of time, computers are able to keep complete situational awareness while analyzing what the target is doing.
Umm, you are aware that this is a SIMULATION, not the real world, right? We're not talking about a real jet with a real AI in real combat conditions. Yeah, computer can beat people in games - we've been able to do that for a long time. Not at all the same thing as a real world fight in conditions where the rules of engagement are unclear, the political situation is fraught, and the decision to fire is difficult. We put humans as pilots as much for their decision making abilities as we do their ability to actually fight.
The only question is how long until we can trust them to work totally autonomously.
That's not a question at all. The answer is clear. Never. If a decision is to be made to take a human life then a human needs to make that decision. In principle it's no different than pulling the trigger on a pistol. The pistol can be fired without a human in the loop but for very practical and ethical reasons we put a human in charge of making the decision to pull the trigger. What happens after that is mechanics. It's the decision to fire that is the important bit, not how the task is carried out.
Because fighter jets can fire more than one missile, have counter measures, and other weaponry which might be of use. They are also inherently reusable.
I've yet to see any form of public transit without windows. People wouldn't ride it.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Do you realise that modern military aircraft *already* identify targets on radar and through the HUD, and present them to the pilot as such? The onboard avionics already highlight to the pilot the ideal point at which to shoot (literally, on the F/A-18 the box on the HUD turns from a square to a diamond and presents the word "SHOOT" underneath it).
Onboard avionics targeting systems are already advanced beyond the state which you think they lack.
Easy for Author Mouthpiece Lazarus Long to say, since he's a Marty Stu with Immortality.
> will not surrender control to a computer
I think the kaur (the user you were responding to) is wrong, buses and airplanes have windows you can open to watch the interesting and colorful world go by - in addition to window shades if you want to watch Netflix - it will be your choice. But you are also wrong, you already surrender control to a computer when it lands the commercial aircraft you are riding in. You even surrender control to your ABS brakes (occasionally) in your car which make better and faster decisions than you can about which ONE of your four car wheels to brake 10 times a second.
I see a bright happy future where I am actively enjoying the scenery and actively suggesting to the car where to go, but the car will "kick in" and avoid running over a small child or deer in the road faster than my human reflexes could manage. In my 35 years of driving (every day commuter here) I still managed to let my attention waiver once and got in a minor accident (my fault).The average driver gets in 3 or 4 accidents, so I think I'm still "above average" in my driving, but some day a computer will be able to do better than I can in avoiding accidents. I look forward to the help.
Sometimes you don't want to put a 450 kg warhead through somebody's window when an 8 kg warhead will do.
Sometimes you don't know how many targets there are until you're near the target.
Sometimes you need to use additional missiles if the first wasn't sufficient and can't afford the non-trivial flight time for a second launch.
Sometimes you want to go home without blowing things up and without wasting 1.6M USD.
There are advantages to having a reusable launch platform in the area, whether that be a UAV or a strike fighter.