The aircraft flew up to speeds of 1,200mph. DARPA did not reveal which aircraft won the dogfight.
In 2020, so-called “AI agents” defeated human pilots in simulations in all five of their match-ups - but the technology needed to be run for real in the air.
It did not reveal which aircraft won the dogfight.
I’m gonna guess the AI won.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 6 months ago
AI will win if not now, then soon. The reason is that even if it is worse than a human, the AI can pull off maneuvers that would black out a human.
Jets are far more powerful than humans are capable of controlling. Flight suits and training can only do so much to keep the pilot from blacking out.
NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I think the same will eventually be true for AI, especially when you give it weapons
Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I think theres a movie about that
intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 months ago
It’s already true for AI. Just observe OpenAI trying to control what their AIs talk about. The mechanisms of control they’re trying to employ are leaky at best.
circuscritic@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Maneuverability is much less of a factor now as BVR engagements and stealth have taken over.
But, yeah, in general a pilot that isn’t subject to physical constraints can absolutely out maneuver a human by a wide margin.
The future generation will resemble a Protoss Carrier sans the blimp appearance. Human controllers in 5th and 6th Gen airframes who direct multiple AI wingman, or AI swarms.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Plus the ai has no risk, outside of basic operation.
Humans have an inherent survival instinct to which drones can just say “lol send the next one I’m dying cya”
intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 months ago
To fight optimally, AI needs to have a survival instinct too.
Evolution didn’t settle on “protect my life at all costs” as our default instinct, simply by chance. It did so because it’s the best strategy in a hostile environment.
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 6 months ago
Jets are a lot more expensive. What's at risk is all these resources for the jet going down the drain.
EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Can’t they literally pull turns that would snap the pilots neck?
catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Can anyone confirm if AI has a neck?
Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Maybe if you were sitting sideways in the cockpit and did it very abruptly with the flight control computer disabled (only a few jets can even disable it). It’s the sustained G loading that makes you black out or red out.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
A skilled and fit pilot can pull ~9G in a Viper for about 30s.
A computer can pull ~9G for as long has the plane has the speed to pull that hard, or it can pull as hard as it can until the plane snaps in half, because computers don’t suffer from g-LOC.
BrightCandle@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Not so much f16s but the more modern planes can do 16G where the pilot can’t really do more than 9G. But once unshackled from a pilot a lot of instrument weight and pilot survival can be stripped from a plane design and the airframe built to withstand much more, with titanium airframes I see no reason we can’t make planes do sustained unstable turns in excess of 20G.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 months ago
We might have to start submerging pilots in breathable fluid.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Here comes the juice!
Gigan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Can they be piloted remotely? Or would that be too dangerous with latency
psud@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yes they can. Before AI the US was expecting to move to remote piloted jets
intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Latency, signal interference, and limited human intelligence are all limiting factors in that strategy.
If the enemy interferes with any of those, the enemy wins.
This was is already being fought with autonomous drones. By the end of it, the robots will be unrecognizable to us now.
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 6 months ago
You're better off with drones
Buelldozer@lemmy.today 6 months ago
This article didn’t mention it but the AI pilot did win at least one of the engagements during this testing run.
tal@lemmy.today 6 months ago
I’d jump in and insert a major caution here.
I don’t know what is being done here, but a lot of the time, wargaming and/or military exercises are presented in the media as being an evaluation of which side/equipment/country is better in a “who would win” evaluation.
I’ve seen several prominent folks familiar with these warn about misinterpreting these, and I’d echo that now.
That is often not the purpose of actual exercises or wargames. They may be used to test various theories, and may place highly unlikely constraints on one side that favor it or the other.
So if someone says “the US fought China in a series of wargames in the Taiwan Strait and the US/China won in N wargames”, that may or may not be because the wargame planners were trying to find out who is likely to win an actual war, and may or may not have much to to with the expectations the planners have of a win in a typical scenario. They might be trying to find out what would happen in a particular scenario that they are working on and how to plan for that scenario. They may have structured things in a way that are not representative of what they expect to likely come up.
To pull up an example, here’s a fleet exercise that the US ran against a simulated German fleet between World War I and II:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_problem
That may be a perfectly reasonable way of identifying potential weaknesses, but the planners may not have been aiming for the overall goal of evaluating whether, in the interwar period, Germany or the US would likely win in an overall war. Saying that the Black Fleet defeated the Blue Fleet in terms of the rules of the exercise doesn’t mean that Germany would necessarily win an overall war; evaluating that isn’t the purpose of the exercise.