Submitted 4 weeks ago by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to technology@lemmy.world
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.
I was actually assuming the opposite, because if the AI won they’d want to brag about it.
Bragging just means more money flowing to enemies’ research programs. When a fight is inevitable you want to appear as weak as possible to prevent your enemy from taking it seriously.
No way we give up that information for free. Either way it went, the knowledge of it cost a lot to gain and is useful. If it failed you want your enemy wasting money on it. If it succeeded you want your enemy not investing in it.
Hahaha how the fuck is AI going to win in air-to-air combat if we completely delete them when playing Air Combat in the highest difficulty?
Seethe, AI tech bros.
So instead of Ai vs human fight… It’s like human vs time to hack?
I know right. Aimbots have been around for years.
You think aliens are actually piloting the craft that come all this way?
You’re never gonna see an alien body because they aren’t here.
Bet we’ve got a drone or two of theirs tho.
Or it had a fatal error and crashed the plane
Are dogfights even still a thing?
I remember playing an F15 simulator 20 years ago where “dogfighting” already meant clicking on a radar blip 100 miles away, then doing something else while your missile killed the target.
‘Dogfighting’ mostly just means air-to-air combat now. They do still make fighter jets that have guns or can mount guns, but I think they’re primarily intended for surface targets rather than air targets.
I always thought it would be a game change to have guns that could point different directions.
Well if both sides get working stealth dogfights are going to become more common.
But the US seems to estimate it’s adversaries do not have such capability at the moment since it’s ordering new F-15s with the major change being air to air missile capacity.
Missiles also did not have 100 miles range 20 years ago. That’s without considering actually detecting and tracking the target.
Missiles also did not have 100 miles range 20 years ago.
Somewhat missing then point there I feel. They are right, I was thinking the exact same thing when I read the headline, aircraft don’t really engage in dog fights anymore. It’s all missiles and long-range combat. I don’t think any modern war would involve aircraft shooting at each other with bullets.
We all know which aircraft won the fight.
Those of us who play video games do at least. All the AI difficulty settings are arbitrary. You give the bot the ability to use its full capability, and the game is unplayable.
In video games the AI have access to all the data in the game. In real life both the human and AI have access to the same (maybe imprecise) sensor data. There are also physical limitations in the real world. I don’t think it’s the same scenario.
Plus they had humans on board the AI jet. I imagine it could pull some crazy insane Gs without the human pushing the engineering to the red line.
For sure without humans the AI probably wins, assuming the instruments are good. This wasn’t without humans, but it probably still wins.
I’m fairly certain most dogfights happen on instruments only at this point, so I don’t see a chance the human won. The AI can react faster and more aggressively. It can also almost perfectly match a G-load profile limit (which could be much higher without humans on board) where a human needs to stay a little under to not do damage.
This is all assuming the data it was given was good and comprehensive, which I’m sure it was. It also likely trained in a simulation a lot too. This is one of those things AI is great for. Anything that requires doing something new and unique it can’t handle, but if it just requires executing an output based on inputs, that’s a perfect use case.
I don’t know, one camera lead falls out and it’s all over for the AI. The human still is going to be more adaptable than an AI and always will be until we have full true AGI.
Having said that if we ever do have AGI I 100% believe the US military would be stupid enough to put it in a combat aircraft.
What if we invent artificial gravity just so we can simulate pilot orientation and g forces while they sit still in a simulator?
giving AI military training is “responsible”, is it? Oh good, I’m glad training software to kill is going “responsibly”, that’s good to know. Kinda seems like the way a republican uses words - backwards, in opposition to their actual meaning, but hey, fuck the entire world, right?
If you want some sort of arms control agreement for AI, you’re going to be faced with the problem of verification that countries are complying.
My guess is that that’s probably very difficult to do. All you need is a datacenter somewhere and someone with expertise.
And if an arms control agreement doesn’t exist, then not developing a promising technology just disadvantages a given country.
And if an arms control agreement does exist, it’s just a trap for those naive enough to think such things work.
Putin got us to avoid prepping for a Ukraine invasion simply by repeating that he wasn’t going to invade. And right up until the very moment it happened, the dominant conversation still was not based on the premise that he was going to.
The whole concept of doublespeak works because humans have a powerful compulsion to simply believe what others say. Even if we know their actions and their words are in conflict, we have an extremely hard time following our observations of their actions, and ignoring their words.
It’s like the Stroop task, but with other humans’ behavior instead of ink colors.
Conservatives tend to be those who, by experience, have been forced out of the notion that the base of existence is not war.
It’s an illusion which can only be maintained when others are facing the war.
Humans tend to remain in the comfortable illusion until they are forced out of it, usually by an encounter with a psychopath victimizing them, or an actual war.
One step closer to machine domination.
Like, not even in a joking sense. Ukraine is using a ton of drones, the future of physical warfare will simply be a test resources and production.
I’m hoping that the sheer cost of executing that sort of war will continue to be a prohibiting factor like it is today
I am a FIRM believer in any automated kill without a human pulling the trigger is a war crime
Yes mines yes uavs yes yes yes
It is a crime against humanity
Stop
You mean it should be a war crime, right? Or is there some treaty I am unaware of?
Also, why? I don’t necessarily disagree, I am just curious.
Not OP, but if you can’t convince a person to kill another person then you shouldn’t be able to kill them anyways.
There are points in historical conflicts, from revolutions to wars, when the very people you picked to fight for your side think “are we the baddies” and just stop fighting. This generally leads to less deaths and sometimes a more democratic outcome.
If you can just get a drone to keep killing when any reasonable person would surrender you’re empowering authoritarianism and tyranny.
Mines are designated war crimes by the Geneva convention because of the indiscriminate killing. Many years ago, good human right lawyers could have extended that to drones… (Source: i had close friends in international law)
But i feel like now the tides have changed and tech companies have influenced the general population to think that ai is good enough to prevent “indiscriminate” killing.
Yes
Because it is a slippery slope and dangerous to our future existence as a species
I broadly agree, but that’s not what this is, right?
This is a demonstration of using AI to execute combat against an explicitly selected target.
So it still needs the human to pull the trigger, just the trigger does some sick plane stunts rather than just firing a bullet in a straight line.
I would imagine it was more than evasive since they called it a dogfight, but ye
The F-16 being flown by the AI has 3-D Thrust Vectoring.
It’s an absolute beast of an aircraft.
So does my penis and it is not a beast of a penis.
That seems like cheating if it’s being put up against a standard f16…
We all know how this ends:
A bunch of old people bomb the box office?
Hey, it was an okay movie for it’s time.
Is Sharon Apple somehow involved? Can we get a list of virtual idols with suspicious behavior?
That’s a Macross reference?
Instantly my thought too.
AI has a already won in these confrontations
Surface To Air missile made human piloted aircraft obsolete.
All that’s needed now are a bunch of missiles, plug into an AI program and let it run by itself.
Why would militaries invest in a billion dollar aircraft piloted by a highly trained aircraft pilot with years of training that cost millions of dollars that is probably paid millions over many years … when the pilot and his aircraft can be shot down by a $100,000 missile. If you can’t do it with one missile, send three, four or ten, it’s still cheaper than matching them with an aircraft and pilot.
Instead of investing in expensive aircraft and pilots, all a defending country can do is just spend the same amount of money and surround their country with anti aircraft missiles controlled by AI systems.
Are you not aware of stealth aircraft?
How do you deploy manned fighters against an aircraft you can’t detect?
Why would militaries invest in a billion dollar aircraft piloted by a highly trained aircraft pilot with years of training that cost millions of dollars that is probably paid millions over many years … when the pilot and his aircraft can be shot down by a $100,000 missile.
It ain’t that easy to shoot down stealth aircraft.
Hell, it's not easy to shoot down non-stealth aircraft
The pilot evaded all six missiles while not being able to deploy any chaff/flare countermeasures.
There’s also the extreme bottleneck of using a meat bag that dies if it maneuvers too fast or for too long. The limitations of aircraft are not their own strength or materials.
Planes have been able to be remote-controlled since the 80s.
Since the 80s.
I mean, yeah, but the significant bit here isn’t remote control by a human, but that there isn’t a human running things.
I'm not an AI expert, but I think it's got the plane turned the wrong way around.
Can’t wait until the poor people are not killed by other (but less) poor people for some rich bastards anymore but instead the mighty can command their AI’s to do the slaughter. Such an important part of evolution. I guess.
Skynet will be proud of them.
AI technically already won this debate because autonomous war drones are somewhat ubiquitous.
I doubt jets are going to have the usefulness in war that they used to.
Much more economical to have 1000 cheap drones with bombs overwhelm defenses than put your bets on one “special boi” to try and slip through with constantly defeated stealth capabilities.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a drill over Edwards Air Force Base, the pair of F-16 fighter jets flew at speeds of up to 1,200mph and got as close as 600 metres during aerial combat, also known as dogfighting.
While in flight, the AI algorithm relies on analysing historical data to make decisions for present and future situations, according to the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which carried out the test.
This process is called “machine learning”, and has for years been tested in simulators on the ground, said DARPA, a research and development agency of the US Department of Defense.
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.
Pilots were on board the X-62A in case of emergency, but they didn’t need to revert controls at any point during the test dogfight, which took place in September last year and was announced this week.
"The potential for autonomous air-to-air combat has been imaginable for decades, but the reality has remained a distant dream up until now, said Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall.
The original article contains 455 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“Luck is one of my skills” when it turns out this entire thing is a terrible idea for the date of humanity.
i hate this world
Imagine the pressure on the pilot from their buddies… You would never live down losing
Ace Combat 7 IRL
Garodotooo! Gundamapailotu! Uhh, ahhh! Gundama!
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago
I think the same will eventually be true for AI, especially when you give it weapons
Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I think theres a movie about that
intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago
Can’t they literally pull turns that would snap the pilots neck?
catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Can anyone confirm if AI has a neck?
Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago
We might have to start submerging pilots in breathable fluid.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Here comes the juice!
Gigan@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Can they be piloted remotely? Or would that be too dangerous with latency
psud@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Yes they can. Before AI the US was expecting to move to remote piloted jets
intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago
You're better off with drones
Buelldozer@lemmy.today 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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.