Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

["Samuel Penn" <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, February 8, 2008 02:06, Allan Goodall wrote:
> Funny enough, that's the same thing I was arguing on this list a
> decade ago. At the time, most list members argued against it, partly
> because they like the sci-fi idea of humans in the cockpit, but there
> was all sorts of touchy-feely "humans are special" and "computers are
> predictable" comments, too.
>
> I think we're seeing a sea change. You can't deny the fact that UAVs
> have made an important impact. Regardless of whether or not they are
> about the same price, or size as a manned aircraft, there is one very
> important factor: there is no pilot at risk in a UAV!

The main advantage here is that UAVs have the potential to be
mass produced in a very short space of time. You can go from
a small number (and low expense) of UAVs in peacetime, to lots
of UAVs simply by throwing money at some factories.

As AI improves, so the need for pilots on the ground is reduced.
Even without this, training of human remote pilots is going to
be easier than real pilots, since (as I believe you said, but
I've snipped it now) they can learn from their mistakes. No
more problems like the RAF faced in the Battle of Britain.

For the record, I'm a proponent of strong AI, so I don't think
we'll be needing the pilots on the ground in the next 200 years.
Whether this makes for an interesting SF background is another
matter entirely (some authors have done it, some have sidestepped
the problem).

-- 
Be seeing you,            http://www.glendale.org.uk
Sam.                      xmpp:sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l