what harm can happen ... 7

[rb1957]

from Flight …

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

Personally, I think it's why self driving cars will hit a wall,

They've been hitting lots of things, including pedestrians.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

until you have a SLR pointing towards a human across the border as a 19 year old with them trying to hit you with a 50 cal.....

 

[drawoh]

I wonder how the Tarnak Farm Incident would have played out with drones?

Back in 1988, when that Iranian airliner got shot down, the Vincennes was known as robocruiser. In the days leading up to the shooting, other US Navy crews were concerned about it.

Would a robot be eager to show off how tough it is?

--
JHG

 

[CWB1]

rb, MacArthur criticized both his superiors and the US' official position on the war to the media, not a heinous crime but still a very serious violation of the UCMJ that is usually a career-ender. Vindman did the same in front of Congress. Both were at the end of their careers arguably with little to lose and nowhere to go. MacArthur was a 5-star and Vindman's career had peaked due to the fact that he had effectively no command experience/education, he hadn't led troops since being a platoon leader/LT bc he had served largely as a bureaucrat/political/agency liaison. Both incidents were used politically, but nothing about either being retired is political unless you disregard the fact that both violated the UCMJ and common military tradition/courtesy in a major way. Many would argue they were let off easily by being retired without time spent in the brig. Certainly aspects of the US military are political - obviously the mission is, the upper half of the officer ranks are all Congressional appointments, and politicians love to virtue signal via the military (and veterans, PoC, children, etc). As a whole tho the US military is apolitical as there are very real consequences should servicemembers attempt to become political. One of the first things you learn in basic training is that your constitutional rights are secondary to needs of the service, particularly that first amendment.

They've been hitting lots of things, including pedestrians.

I wish Tesla would disable that dam "summon" mode. Allowing AI to drive with someone behind the wheel is bad enough, but allowing them to drive through crowded parking lots should be illegal. I haven't heard of any deaths nearby but have seen close calls and several vehicle-vehicle crashes bc of it.

 

[waross]

As I understand it, MacArthur criticized his superiors publicly.
Vindman answered a legal subpoena and told the truth under oath.
Did the UCMJ require him to refuse to answer and be in contempt of Congress?
Did the UCMJ require him to Not tell the truth under oath.
Vindman was thrown under the bus.
MacArthur was so sure of his popularity and invincibility that he figuratively stood defiantly in front of the bus and was run over.
But hey, I've been wrong before.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[CWB1]

Vindman chose not to stick to the facts of the matter, instead most of his testimony was speculation as to the motives of members of both our administration and the Ukrainians. Most every junior-enlisted within our military, nvm a career officer, has given sworn testimony or written sworn statements to document even minor incidents and knows the consequences of doing so. Just as in a courtroom the rule is stick to the facts to allow unbiased decision-making. Unfortunately as we see time and again, rules don't apply to Congress. Vindman knowingly speculated to make his superiors look bad. There literally was no bus to be thrown under, had Vindman stuck to the facts of the matter as customary and proper he wouldn't have been more than a brief mention in the media nor been at risk of consequences from UCMJ. He was at the end of his career prior to giving testimony and would not have been promoted again otherwise. The fact that members of Congress were demanding his promotion anyway, willing to delay promotion of 1k+ other officers, and that he was apparently willing to take it speaks volumes.

 

[dik]

Anytime I've testified... it's to answer the questions presented. It's up to whatever counsel to object to the question... not up to me. Maybe his superiors 'looked bad' and he was unable to put the lipstick on the pig.

Dik

 

[rb1957]

we've morphed this into a discussion about AI in the cockpit. I expect we'll see an AI replacement for the first officer sometime soon. first it'll be an AI adjunct to the first officer, then the first officer overseeing the AI, then no first officer.

Then we'll have a different problem to solve … one (human) pilot in the cockpit, which has turned out bad in the past (on isolated occasions). Then will the AI be able to overcome the human pilot if it suspects something's gone awry ? But what if the AI gets confused (or paranoid) … "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

Having an AI has some definite advantages, though; many accidents have occurred because the subordinates were deferential to the senior, but the senior was in "tunnel vision" mode, ignoring other data and inputs, which then resulted in the accident. Navy pilots landing on aircraft carriers have had similar issues with concentrating so much on centering the "ball" that they neglect their airspeed, which is why landing signal officers (LSOs) exist, so that they can prompt the pilot to pay attention to EVERYTHING. An AI would have no deference to the pilot in charge and could immediately point the pilot to crucial information that they're ignoring.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[1503-44]

I thought they intentionally do a carrier landing hot, so watching airspeed isn't as important as centering on the zone and they get waved off, if they look like they're going to miss the lineup, or if they look to be too high (or too low) to catch the last wire???

 

[davidbeach]

That's my understanding as well, that they are essentially beginning to go around again before touching down. If you miss the wire and aren't already in the process of taking off again you won't stay out of the drink.

 

[rb1957]

sure they start their approach with some airspeed, but thing change and all of a sudden too fast, or too slow, and bad things happen next.

Yes, AI is very good for monitoring things and bring them to the attention of their human "master". But on approach to a carrier you don't want to be distracted by someone saying "excuse me sir, but airspeed too low" … you'd rather give the AI control to maintain airspeed with the pilot feeling changes in the throttle position or hearing.

I wonder if it would be "better" to have the pilot laser designate the landing spot and have the airplane deliver him there ? Tho' I'm sure most naval aviators (who can do this very successfully) would say "NEVER !". I wonder what the accident rate is like ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

pilot laser designate the landing spot

The laser "designators" on the Navy aircraft that carry them are not in the visible range, nor are they eye-safe, nor are the imagers on the aircraft of the right FOV to do that. The eye-safe rangefinders are likewise not visible to any of the imagers and likewise, the imagers are not the right FOVs. And, the trackers are not designed to do that specific tracking problem, i.e., gigantic ship with offset track/designation on the arresting cables.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[drawoh]

rb1957,

A robot co-pilot may have problems with a pilot like this. The video has a NSFW warning, although I did not see anything other than a story about a stripper.

This guy also has a commentary about Madagascar[ ]2. Apparently, the penguins flying the old Lockheed airliner is not totally authentic.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

there has been warning systems and monitoring of envelope for years.

The F35 will even avoid terrain as well if the pilot G locks out. You don't need an AI to do the pilot monitoring functions.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

https://www.ladbible.com/news/news-...hot-through-head-by-f-16-awarded-25m-20201016

A sad accident

 

[Sparweb]

Yes, but not relevant to the discussion of AI-controlled aircraft, except in terms of "human pilots make mistakes, too".

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It is and isn't, the drive for it is some ways driven by human failures.

In this case the AI would have know the canon was pointing out side the range splash area and refused to fire. If it calculated the ricochet was dangerous then it also wouldn't allow you to fire.

There is one side of it to increase the effectiveness of a weapon system and there is another to prevent the system being used on an invalid target or to protect friendly forces.

 

[dik]

Interesting stuff:

https://thebulletin.org/2020/10/ban...ontent=DisruptiveTechnology_AIdebate_10162020

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
-Dik

 

[drawoh]

dik,

There is an interesting headline attached to that page...

When AI is in control, who’s to blame for military accidents?

This one is a no-brainer. The people who developed the AI are responsible, as well as whoever is in charge. If AI developers are responsible for any war crimes or other incidents caused by a robot, they will develop cautiously, or they will not develop stuff.

People who develop and deploy robots are responsible for what the robot does.

--
JHG