Future Navy toys

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Singlemalt said:
Besides attention, what do you want Ty? You earlier said we were closing the drones down and now what? Like I said earlier, is every thing an evil conspiracy? You are all over the map. Shall we all say America is Satan? Then what, you get laid by Schuylaar? And then Bernie is Pres?
Click to expand...
Lol

And you wanna call someone else crazy?
 
dstroy

dstroy

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
They're designed to be autonomous. The chilling implication is that they'll make the kill/no kill decisions based on algorithms rather than direct commands.

Doesn't that make you feel safer already?
Click to expand...
No they don't. Someone has to press a button (more likely multiple buttons) to remove any safeties before it can shoot. It'll always be like that, the only time you give something full autonomous control is if it is being attacked or attack is imminent and the threat is known because another unit was attacked or we get intel that attack is imminent. Even then in most cases there will still be one safety enabled just in case the intel was bad or there is no attack. When safeties get disabled for no reason is when bad accidents happen.

Aegis ships have auto doctrine too, and will shoot at anything that looks like a threat if that doctrine is enabled. There are only a few very specific circumstances which are outlined in the CO's battle orders that tell the TAO what criteria need to be met before auto doctrine is enabled. The only time that would happen is if the shit REALLY hit the fan and there were too many threats inbound to engage one at a time manually. Even then, you still have to override if they have valid IFF.

Tomahawk missiles are autonomous once they leave, you can tell them to patrol an area as well. Someone had to build the flight profile, upload it, and then multiple people have to give the order to make that missile leave. People are still culpable, and intimately involved with every step of the process of making that missile leave the ship or station and head to its' destination.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
Yeah, as stupid as we are, we still do a far better job at making tough decisions than machines do. We can make that "in-the-moment" moral judgement not to take a shot. A machine won't do that.

It goes both ways of course. We nuvpu' direct fire on friendly forces or non-combatants (innocent bystanders) wayyyy too often. But machines aren't sharp enough to make those distinctions. AI just is way too light on the "I" to let it loose on its own.

It's great at automating routine "tasks", and following instructions like follow these gps coordinates, stay this height over the terrain, and go boom here at this altitude. They can even take pre-programmed inputs into consideration. Up to a point.

Even self driving vehicles are just fancy binary decision engines. They can't make a call to hit a cyclist on the right rather than hit the family that stepped out into the street pushing baby carriage's. They can also be put into blind paths where they just stop and wait for a person to get them out of it.

I know machines. Machines are my friend. You sir, are no machine. ;)
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
dstroy said:
No they don't. Someone has to press a button (more likely multiple buttons) to remove any safeties before it can shoot. It'll always be like that, the only time you give something full autonomous control is if it is being attacked or attack is imminent and the threat is known because another unit was attacked or we get intel that attack is imminent. Even then in most cases there will still be one safety enabled just in case the intel was bad or there is no attack. When safeties get disabled for no reason is when bad accidents happen.

Aegis ships have auto doctrine too, and will shoot at anything that looks like a threat if that doctrine is enabled. There are only a few very specific circumstances which are outlined in the CO's battle orders that tell the TAO what criteria need to be met before auto doctrine is enabled. The only time that would happen is if the shit REALLY hit the fan and there were too many threats inbound to engage one at a time manually. Even then, you still have to override if they have valid IFF.

Tomahawk missiles are autonomous once they leave, you can tell them to patrol an area as well. Someone had to build the flight profile, upload it, and then multiple people have to give the order to make that missile leave. People are still culpable, and intimately involved with every step of the process of making that missile leave the ship or station and head to its' destination.
Click to expand...
As you can see, ttystikk (who hasn't served a single day in the Navy) knows far, far more about this than you do. Any errors are the fault of his drone (cough!) phone.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
dstroy said:
No they don't. Someone has to press a button (more likely multiple buttons) to remove any safeties before it can shoot. It'll always be like that, the only time you give something full autonomous control is if it is being attacked or attack is imminent and the threat is known because another unit was attacked or we get intel that attack is imminent. Even then in most cases there will still be one safety enabled just in case the intel was bad or there is no attack. When safeties get disabled for no reason is when bad accidents happen.

Aegis ships have auto doctrine too, and will shoot at anything that looks like a threat if that doctrine is enabled. There are only a few very specific circumstances which are outlined in the CO's battle orders that tell the TAO what criteria need to be met before auto doctrine is enabled. The only time that would happen is if the shit REALLY hit the fan and there were too many threats inbound to engage one at a time manually. Even then, you still have to override if they have valid IFF.

Tomahawk missiles are autonomous once they leave, you can tell them to patrol an area as well. Someone had to build the flight profile, upload it, and then multiple people have to give the order to make that missile leave. People are still culpable, and intimately involved with every step of the process of making that missile leave the ship or station and head to its' destination.
Click to expand...
My uncle was on the Tomahawk team at General Dynamics. That said, it's a 25 year old weapon system now.

Fire and forget is only the first stage of autonomous war fighting, and we are well past that now.

I wish I could believe what you are saying is true but I know better.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
Yeah, as stupid as we are, we still do a far better job at making tough decisions than machines do. We can make that "in-the-moment" moral judgement not to take a shot. A machine won't do that.

It goes both ways of course. We nuvpu' direct fire on friendly forces or non-combatants (innocent bystanders) wayyyy too often. But machines aren't sharp enough to make those distinctions. AI just is way too light on the "I" to let it loose on its own.

It's great at automating routine "tasks", and following instructions like follow these gps coordinates, stay this height over the terrain, and go boom here at this altitude. They can even take pre-programmed inputs into consideration. Up to a point.

Even self driving vehicles are just fancy binary decision engines. They can't make a call to hit a cyclist on the right rather than hit the family that stepped out into the street pushing baby carriage's. They can also be put into blind paths where they just stop and wait for a person to get them out of it.

I know machines. Machines are my friend. You sir, are no machine. ;)
Click to expand...
DARPA and the Air Force, among others, have been working on protocols for autonomous engagement for over 20 years now. The idea they aren't/won't be utilised is simply naive.

The attraction of the 'we didn't do it, defective protocols killed those innocent people' as an excuse will be too strong to resist.

I wish I was wrong on this- but I'm not.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
DARPA and the Air Force, among others, have been working on protocols for autonomous engagement for over 20 years now. The idea they aren't/won't be utilised is simply naive.

The attraction of the 'we didn't do it, defective protocols killed those innocent people' as an excuse will be too strong to resist.

I wish I was wrong on this- but I'm not.
Click to expand...
Nobody said they won't be used, but right now they are a panic button. Those protocols will kill any non-friendly target they can map or they see moving. Which in most cases is everything that moves without a valid iff response. Civilians aren't issued iff transponders.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
Nobody said they won't be used, but right now they are a panic button. Those protocols will kill any non-friendly target they can map or they see moving. Which in most cases is everything that moves without a valid iff response. Civilians aren't issued iff transponders.
Click to expand...
'persons in the ground are considered enemy combatants until proven otherwise'

Bush era legal doctrine covering the use of drones to attack ground targets.

One small step for a White House lawyer...
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Number of innocent civilians killed by Air Force Pilots in the last 10 years: 0

Number of innocent civilians killed by drones piloted by Playstation kids from the other side of the planet: 385. 160 of those were children.

Pilots make a difference. You're wrong as usual.

[/end thread]
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Number of innocent civilians killed by Air Force Pilots in the last 10 years: 0

Number of innocent civilians killed by drones piloted by Playstation kids from the other side of the planet: 385. 160 of those were children.

Pilots make a difference. You're wrong as usual.

[/end thread]
Click to expand...
Wildly unsupported bullshit presented as fact. Is that what cops with PhDs usually do?

Yet the armed forces are currently investing more in new drone designs than manned fighter designs.
 
WeedFreak78

WeedFreak78

Well-Known Member
Americans have a N.I.M.B.Y attitude towards drones. Wanna fly over foreign countries to survey and attack? That's fine, but fuck you for flying those over my house. I've said for years that until Americans have to deal with constant surveillance (which we pretty much have) , invading forces and threat of attacks every day, they won't care about supporting it everywhere else around the world, we're insulated from it. I've always been surprised at the general "better them, than us" attitude without realizing it's not , usually, the people of the area but the government or fringe forces that are the problem. Too much ignorance.

How would you react if an invading force was fucking up your neighborhood and killing your friends and family for something you had nothing to do with other than just living in a particular region under a particular government?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top