RE: [FT]SML question

--- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
> On Tue, 19 June 2001, David Griffin wrote:
> 
> > Humans are predictable in the LARGE not the SMALL.
> 
> They are more predictable than they think. It's how
> so-called "psychics" work. But, yes, there are a lot
> of variations in individuals based on stimulus. In
> combat, however, there are only a few "right" moves.
> Fighter pilots drill and drill in order to react
> quickly. Reaction time on a fighter is often more
> important than doing the unpredictable. It's usually
> unpredictable for a reason.

I'm certainly not a fighter pilot, but in the games
I've played where you get the chance to choose what
you do next -- dive, climb, turn sharp, fire a
snap shot, etc. There seem to be a LOT of different
choices. I don't think it would be quite so easy
to distill all that in a program. 

In Chess at first, we saw computers play badly 
because they weren't capable of the sort of neural
short circuiting we do in jumping to a conclusion
without working through all the possibilities. But
when they got faster and were able to work through
all the possibilities, they didn't need that
ability. That might be possible here too, but I
think the game of air combat is a lot more complicated
than chess, so it might take a while to get there.
And that assumes pilots don't get enhanced themselves.

If there are any real ex fighter pilots on the 
list, maybe they'd like to comment.

In regards to the inertial dampers, I can see what
you're saying. I guess what would matter is whether
the fighter pilot could bring something to the
equation that would be worth the loss in performance.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.