I think theres a movie about that

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.

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.

Jets are a lot more expensive. What’s at risk is all these resources for the jet going down the drain.

Can anyone confirm if AI has a neck?

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.

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.

We might have to start submerging pilots in breathable fluid.

Not that that isn’t interesting, but 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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_problem

Fleet Problem III and Grand Joint Army-Navy Exercise No. 2

During Fleet Problem III, the Scouting Force, designated the “Black Force,” transited from its homeport in the Chesapeake Bay towards the Panama Canal from the Caribbean side. Once in the Caribbean, the naval forces involved in Fleet Problem III joined with the 15th Naval District and the Army’s Panama Division in a larger joint exercise.[9] The Blue force defended the canal from an attack from the Caribbean by the Black force, operating from an advance base in the Azores. This portion of the exercise also aimed to practice amphibious landing techniques and transiting a fleet rapidly through the Panama Canal from the Pacific side.[10]

Black Fleet’s intelligence officers simulated a number of sabotage operations during the course of Fleet Problem III. On January 14, Lieutenant Hamilton Bryan, Scouting Force’s Intelligence Officer, personally landed in Panama with a small boat. Posing as a journalist, he entered the Panama Canal Zone. There, he “detonated” a series of simulated bombs in the Gatun Locks, control station, and fuel depot, along with simulating sabotaging power lines and communications cables throughout the 16th and 17th, before escaping to his fleet on a sailboat.

On the 15th, one of Bryan’s junior officers, Ensign Thomas Hederman, also snuck ashore to the Miraflores Locks. He learned the Blue Fleet’s schedule of passage through the Canal from locals, and prepared to board USS California (BB-44), but turned back when he spotted classmates from the United States Naval Academy - who would have recognized and questioned him - on deck. Instead, he boarded USS New York (BB-34), the next ship in line, disguised as an enlisted sailor. After hiding overnight, he emerged early on the morning of the 17th, bluffed his way into the magazine of the No. 3 turret, and simulated blowing up a suicide bomb - just as the battleship was passing through the Culebra Cut, the narrowest portion of the Panama Canal. This “sank” New York, and blocked the Canal, leading the exercise arbiters to rule a defeat of the Blue Force and end that year’s Grand Joint Army-Navy Exercise.[11][10] Fleet Problem III was also the first which USS Langley (CV-1) took part in, replacing some of the simulated aircraft carriers used in Fleet Problem I.[12]

That may be a perfectly reasonable way of identifying potential weaknesses in Panama Canal transit, 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. If, afterwards, an article says “US wargames show that interwar Germany would most likely defeat the US in a war”, that may not be very accurate.

For the case OP is seeing, it may not even be the case that the exercise planners expect it to be likely for two warplanes to get within dogfighting range. We also do not know what, if any, constraints were placed on either side.

Yes they can. Before AI the US was expecting to move to remote piloted jets

You’re better off with drones

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.

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.

I know right. Aimbots have been around for years.

So instead of Ai vs human fight… It’s like human vs time to hack?

I am very confused.

Not exactly, AI would be able to interpret sensor data in a more complete and thorough way. A person can only take in so much information at once - AI not so limited.

I think even the imperfect sensor data is enough to beat a human. My main argument for why self-driving cars will eventually be objectively safer than the best human drivers (no comment about whether that point has already done) is this:

A human can only look at one thing at a time. Compared to a computer, we see allow, think slow, react show, move slow. A computer can look in all directions all the time, and react to danger coming from any of those directions faster than a human driver would even if they were lucky enough to be looking in the right direction. Add to that the fact that they can take in much more sensor data that isn’t available to the driver or take away from precious looking-at-the-road time for the driver to know, such as wind resistance, engine RPM, or what have you (I’m actually not a car guy so my examples aren’t the best). Bottom line: the AI has a direct connection to more data, can take more of it in at once and make faster decisions based on all of it. It’s inherently better. The “only” hurdles are making it actually interpret its sensors effectively (i.e. understand what cameras are seeing) and make good decisions based on this data. We can argue about how well either of those are in the current state of the technology, but IMO they’re both good enough today to massively outperform a human in most scenarios.

All of this applies to an AI plane as well. So my money is on the AI.

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?

I always thought it would be a game change to have guns that could point different directions.

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.

The line is where an automatic process target and execute a human being. When it is automated. The arming of a device is not sufficient to warrant a human interaction, and as such mines are also not allowed.

This should in my opinion always have been the case. Mines are indiscriminate and have proven to be wildly inhumane in several ways. Significantly, innocents are often killed.

But mines don’t paint the picture of what automated slaughter can lead to.

The point has been laid that when the conscious mind has to kill, it makes war have an important way to end, in the mind.

The dangers extend well beyond killing innocent targets, another part is the coldness of allowing a machine to decide, that is beyond morally corrupt. There is something terrifying about the very idea that facing one of these weapons, there is nothing to negotiate, the cold calculations that want to kill you are not human. It is a place where no human ever wants to be. But war is horrible. It’s the escalation of automated triggers that can lead to exponential death with no remorse which is just a terrible danger.

The murder weapons has nobody’s intent behind them, except very far back, in the arming and the program. It open for scenarios where mass murder becomes easy and terrifyingly cold.

Kind of like the prisoner’s dilemma shows us, that when war escalates, it can quickly devolve into revenge narratives, and when either side has access to cold impudent kills, they will use them. This removes even more humanity from the acts and the violence can reach new heights beyond our comprehension.

Weapons of mass destruction with automated triggers will eventually seal our existence if we don’t abolish it with impunity. It has been seen over and over how the human factor is the only grace that ever end or contain war. Without this component I think we are just doomed to have the last intent humans ever had was revenge, and the last emotions fear and complete hopelessness.

If it is a bad kill, is there a person who will go to jail or be executed for it?

Absolutely. But

There’s a science and whole cultures built around war now

It is important to not infantilize the debate by being absolutist and just shutting any action out.

I am a hard core pacifist at heart.

But this law I want is just not related to that. It is something I feel is needed just to not spell doom on our species. Like with biological warfare

How often do robots fail? How can anyone be so naive as to not see the same danger as with bio warfare? You can’t assure a robot to not become a mass murder cold ass genocidal perpetual machine. And that’s a no no if we want to exist

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 Ottawa treaty 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.

Edit: fixed the treaty name, thanks!

Yes

Because it is a slippery slope and dangerous to our future existence as a species

I would imagine it was more than evasive since they called it a dogfight, but ye

I see you’re familiar with the Charles Band oeuvre.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

The wars of the future will not be fought on a battlefield or at sea…

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

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.

Not at all, but it kind of bugs me how Asimov’s perception of the future weighted so much fear towards AI over profit.