Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:27 pm
No.Even a single celled organism is intelligent, so we must have missed something.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
No.Even a single celled organism is intelligent, so we must have missed something.
See, for example:MirariNefas wrote:No.Even a single celled organism is intelligent, so we must have missed something.
Tom Ligon wrote: Can such an AI's weak points be identified? Absolutely. I can take on as many as 20 Me262's in Jane's WWII simulation, versus my lone Mustang, and usually be the last plane flying, sometimes without a scratch. The 262 in that sim is toothless at very low altitude. My limit against the FW190 is about 4 planes. If I were up against a plane half the size, same firepower, faster, more agile, which literally does not know the meaning of "fear", with just that amount of smarts, I would be in serious trouble.
.
How many times can a real life pilot die before he has a chance to learn about how to beat them?I probably died fifty times before I learned to beat them.
By whom?Diogenes wrote:The P-51 mustang is classed as the greatest fighter aircraft of it's era.
The Spitfire XIV was faster than the Mustang, more maneuverable, had a higher service ceiling, could climb better, and even had a better rate of roll, which was formerly the Mustang's only performance advantage over the Spitfire. It was superior to the P-51D in EVERY combat category except initial dive speed and range, and the only way range came into play in a dogfight is if the P-51 could fly around long enough for the Spit to run out of fuel!
British Spitfire or P51 Mustang?
alexjrgreen wrote:By whom?Diogenes wrote:The P-51 mustang is classed as the greatest fighter aircraft of it's era.
Comparing a Spitfire XIV (entered service January 1944) with a Mustang P-51D (entered service June 1944):
The Spitfire XIV was faster than the Mustang, more maneuverable, had a higher service ceiling, could climb better, and even had a better rate of roll, which was formerly the Mustang's only performance advantage over the Spitfire. It was superior to the P-51D in EVERY combat category except initial dive speed and range, and the only way range came into play in a dogfight is if the P-51 could fly around long enough for the Spit to run out of fuel!
British Spitfire or P51 Mustang?
Tom Ligon wrote:Durn, when did Big Beauiful Doll switch to that stubby 2-blade prop?
http://www.cebudanderson.com/bigdoll.htm
The usual outcome of a Mustang/Me262 fight was the jet ignored the Mustang and just sped away. On a few occasions they were caught low and slow, usually while landing (Yeager got one that way). Had they engaged in a turning dogfight they would probably not done well, but they could choose their own game. It was not their job to dogfight, they were either fighter-bombers or defending against bombers. There is no way my particular scenario would ever have happened becaused massed jets would not have engaged the prop fighter. In this mission, the stupidity of the AIs is they do engage me.
Tom Ligon wrote:Durn, when did Big Beauiful Doll switch to that stubby 2-blade prop?
http://www.cebudanderson.com/bigdoll.htm
Diogenes wrote:I believe I saw that rating on the military channel quite some time ago. They claim to have polled experts from all over the world, and the consensus was the P-51 mustang was the greatest fighter of it's era.
William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."
British Spitfire or P51 Mustang?
That's really arguable. Which 190 and which 51? The comparison can't be averaged from the range of all variables. You have two planes with pretty different lineage, different purposes, each one with a pretty wide range of models. Then you have a range of circumstances in which to pit them against one another. Initial altitude, merge range (e.g. whether or not one or both spotted the other, as frequently didn't happen in WWII), what loadout each one was carrying, etc.Diogenes wrote:The FW 190 is the closest thing the Germans had to a P-51, but it was no match for the king of the skies.
True, but from what I understand the military has to trade some performance for relyability, shielding, heat management etc.I'm no specialist, but I doubt that consumer grade flight sim AI is comparable to military grade. Consumer PCs have to handle everything else (graphics, physics) in the same resource budget as AI, so that's one big limitation already. The military also doesn't have the cramped funding of video game developers
That is exactly what I see too. It is more long range fighting nowadays and less dogfighting. For that stealth and a small radar and IR profile are way more important than dogfighting skills.What I've yet to see myself is long range combat AI in modern setting. You'd expect that the much simpler (relatively) mechanics at work at long range will be sooner conquered by UAV AI than close quarters dogfighting.
So the devil's in the details for this one. Rules of thumb aren't conclusive. It comes down to comparing exact numbers in context.Skipjack wrote:True, but from what I understand the military has to trade some performance for relyability, shielding, heat management etc.
So I think it will even out in the end.
Yes but this is also dependent on the bottom line.. The substrate the AI will run on and be constrained by. I personally (not a specialist, but that's the impression I get) doubt the hardware on a UAV is as low-end and unadapted as home/gaming PCs.Also, where do the military programmers learn their stuff from and where do they come from?
I would say a lot of them have a game dev background and even if it is just some garage game AI- programming. There are plenty of papers out there to learn from.
Is that how it works? A human available to be put in the loop definitely complements AI to beat a human pilot on his own, in his man rated fighter. But again it's not just rules of thumbs.. I expect there's more at work than these few rules of thumb. What about the logistics, the definite handicap of seeing pixels instead of eyeballing things, is there some advantage to fighting for your life (while keeping cool) versus sitting in front of a computer.. And..Also I would not forget that UAVs are piloted usually. The AI would only take over, if for some reason the connection to the base (and the real humand pilots sitting at the remote control there) was lost.
I think that this balances the odds further towards the UAV.
How does it work out in practice, if manned aircraft were to adapt their loadout to counter UAV swarms, so that you had kill vehicles with multiple sub-vehicles like that anti-missile demonstrator from a couple months back? I suspect that's still not enough to counter UAVs in most situations, but I also don't think I know enough of the real picture to realistically argue any further. Modern air combat, from what I've seen, is much more interconnected than WWII. It's much less dependent on only the man in the cockpit as back then. I suppose UAVs are the latest development in this trend.That is exactly what I see too. It is more long range fighting nowadays and less dogfighting. For that stealth and a small radar and IR profile are way more important than dogfighting skills.What I've yet to see myself is long range combat AI in modern setting. You'd expect that the much simpler (relatively) mechanics at work at long range will be sooner conquered by UAV AI than close quarters dogfighting.
And then, if you have a ratio of ten to one, I think the odds are much in favor of the smaller UAVs, at least even.
My apologies, I thought you were saying that single cells can think. Yes, they have well adapted systems which allow complex interactions and a range of responses to stimuli. Most people reading descriptions of what single-celled organisms do in these papers, would probably not call that "intelligent", so I suggest that you define the word "intelligence" when you use it in such a controversial way.alexjrgreen wrote:See, for example:MirariNefas wrote:No.Even a single celled organism is intelligent, so we must have missed something.
Artificial general intelligence: an organism and level based position statement
Microscopical Substantiation of Intelligence in Living Cells