Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>The mathematical model of Fuzzy Trees is nice, but this is completely ad-hoc to the specific modelization of the problem, and will fail to generalize to any other problem space.

Well, why should it? No one is inventing HAL-like AI anytime soon, or ever. If this system does a better job of killing the enemy than human pilots then its quite the breakthrough. Projecting air power is one of the ways countries keep aggressors away and this would be quite an advantage for variety of reasons. Not the least of which means you can now design AI driven fighters that have zero design compromises to keep human pilots alive.

I imagine fighter engagement consists of a fairly limited set of problems to solve. Think of this as just a souped up autopilot/autoland system, except with guns and missiles. We're not asking the AI to write the next Romeo and Juliet here.

>because the paper is very light on details

Defense contractors aren't known for sharing details. I imagine this is a competitive advantage and they want to keep their cards close to their chest. There may even be national security issues here.

> Well, why should it?

Because what is trumpeted as a breakthrough may in fact be so narrow in scope that it may not even be possible to use it in a flight combat video game without a lot of work, let alone any real life environment.

It is absolutely, very closely tied to the mathematical model of aerial combat that they devised and can not easily be made to accommodate new insights, or new challenges.

> Because what is trumpeted as a breakthrough may in fact be so narrow in scope that it may not even be possible to use it in a flight combat video game without a lot of work, let alone any real life environment.

What? They were quite literally running the AI in a simulator -- ie, a very expensive video game. The only thing that might not scale is the computational power necessary to execute.

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant in /another/ video game. They are strongly tied with their particular modelling of the problem.

I suppose it depends on the granularity of the rules. Deciding what to do is separate from how to do it. If those are tied together within the rule system, then yes I agree, the rules would need to be tweaked for every new model. But if the rules only define the goal of the system, and flight mechanics are handled by, say, a goal-based feedback mechanism, then it should work fine in any model.

Additionally, doesn't this mean that the code is very sensitive. If the opponent were to get their hands on the code it would be easy to predict what these things are going to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com