Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...)

Peggy & Jeff Shoffner wrote:

> Not sure about all of the automation; one series I've finished reading
made a
> very good point about allowing a computer to do targeting and ECM; a
human
> tactician on the opposing side could recognize the AI's "random"
jumping for
> ECM (and possibly targeting lasers, radar, whatever) and adjust his
> computer's targeting and ECM to counteract the AI's targeting AND lock
onto
> its ECM to make it a BIG target.  Simply put, humans are better
randomizers.

...Fraid not. An AI can be easily linked to a non-deterministic Random
Number generator (typically a source of radioactive decay). Humans OTOH
are considerably more predictable.

I suspect I'm the only person on this list who's actually designed and
built an automated air warfare system that's actually in service. In My
Expert (as opposed to Humble) Opinion, a mixed Human/Automated system is
ideal, an Automated one a close second, a manual one a distant third.
Case in point: the COSYS-TEWA system had as default AUTO configuration
all weapons automated, with one long-range missile channel excluded and
under manual control. Why? Because AIs are not particularly good at
recognising subtleties. Typically third-party targetting aircraft flying
identical profiles to a COMAIR.
So the single missile channel is used for long-range sniping, while the
other missile and gun channels are used for quick-reaction shots.
I might also add that in at least one demonstration of the system,
against a particularly difficult threat, I made a teeny mistake when
manually firing missiles which caused a delay of about 2 seconds, so had
to press the FULL AUTO button PDQ to retrieve the situation. In this
case, the program was considerably better than my own performance.  

> BIG no-no.  Computers aren't capable of replacing human intuition. 
Survey
> missions especially.

Concur.

> Escort ships either being
> automated or controlled by Cap ships would have problems too.  Does
that
> automated escort recognize our damaged carrier as one of ours, or one
of
> theirs.

That's fairly trivial, even now. The hard bit is deciding the
circumstances when one should say "leave that one alone, it's crippled
and harmless" while in other identical circumstances one should say
"make sure it stays DEAD."

> > 6) Humans actually HAVE developed sapient AIs in secret military
labs.
> > However, they can't get any of them to risk their artificial selves
to fight
> > a war (I've actually got a story idea for this scenario). Lacking
the human
> > "frailties" of love, pride, hate, and personal sacrifice, they
simply won't
> > risk themselves. They KNOW they don't have a soul and that for them
there is
> > nothing beyond this "life," so they damned well won't risk
themselves. Those
> > that have been programmed around this problem have become
functionally insane.
> 
> I can go along with that.

Me too.

-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
100026.2014 compuserve o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
See http://www.z-world.com/graphics/z/master/8856.gif for picture