View Thread
 Drones -> are the reliable and safe?
|
|
| Nerdfish |
Posted on 18-04-2006 08:02
|
 Posts: 30 Joined: March 08 2006 |
Freeze, there is no question drones will beat any pilot, however I think tactical wise a human crew stationed on carriers can help tactical computers to make drones more effective. We can make connections between things that most sophisticated computer systems seriously have problem with. Yesterday I suddenly realized that billboard clipping is caused by billboards getting rendered more then once in every cycle, I think it will take extremely advanced symbolic process to come close to that. I could make that connection because brain?s architecture is evolved over a long time to do just that. Evidence while you really can?t define anything without relation to something else, a computer can define anything, however arbitrary, with a symbol. People see things computers sometimes don?t; having a few on a carrier can turn the tide of battle. You might say you could design computer system with similar architecture, but you have to begin from scratch ? Our greatest strength IMO is coming up with conjunctures from experience with reasonable accuracy. For example, Newton could come up with the idea of universal gravity by speculating the force that pulls down the apple is the same force that keeps the moon in orbit. Of course he may be wrong, but he was right, a computer will have a tough time doing something like it, because these processes are actually not valid from a symbolic process point of view. Again, crews could use this ability to induce what enemy might be doing rather well, while a computer might be completely accurate when it?s given all the information, its accuracy greatly drops even with small mount of missing information. Some good RTS gamers are real expert at reasoning with incomplete information in real time, you should watch pro matches. Last reason for stationing crews on larger vessels is that while computers are great at the one thing it?s designed at, it absolutely will not be able to handle anything else. Try having a tactical computer first contact and not starting a war and seeing how hard that is. This is a minor reason but is worth considering. I have presented my argument, if you have anything to say, I will be happy to read. To subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence. -Sun-Tzu
Until your enemies decided they don't want to be subjugated any more - The fish |
|
|
|
| Nerdfish |
Posted on 18-04-2006 09:49
|
|
Posts: 30 Joined: March 08 2006 |
Matrix and Terminator situations are not very likely. Symbolic computers are not designed to be control systems of biological organism that has to survive evolution. As such, at a fundamental level, they do not have the need of self preservation. Instead, their fitness functions are dictated by their masters (rather then their genetics). In case of an error, majority of drones will remain well under control. Rogue drones should not pose a threat. Large scale ?rebellion? can only be triggered by drone manufacturers for their own interest. But battle, at the fundamental level, is between human interests. I think computer systems will eventually take part in all activities they excel at. However people are still going to be relatively better at certain things, due to comparative Advantage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparat..._advantage Edited by Nerdfish on 18-04-2006 09:50 To subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence. -Sun-Tzu
Until your enemies decided they don't want to be subjugated any more - The fish |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 19-04-2006 03:38
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
I've been waiting for a long time for someone to finally nail down the fact that the prospect of your machine servants going out of control is technically impossible. Quote Some good RTS gamers are real expert at reasoning with incomplete information in real time, you should watch pro matches. Yes, textbook procedures, plans and documentation are the first thing out of the window when the shooting starts  |
|
|
|
| mrWHO |
Posted on 19-04-2006 19:23
|
 Posts: 485 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Quote Yes, textbook procedures, plans and documentation are the first thing out of the window when the shooting starts so true |
|
|
|
| Al-Qhirajh |
Posted on 20-04-2006 00:34
|
 Posts: 2 Joined: April 19 2006 |
I may not have read through the entire forum but i was wondering one thing: does anyone remember the so-called "Phased Telemetry" for the Leeches in HW:C? Why not use that? It's not the fact of the coding in this case really, its simply a matter of making sure that YOU are the only one who even knows about that frequency. Sure, anyone else with phased communication technology could easily realize on not what, but what TYPE of frequency your drones work off of, and then they would have to break the coding, which would be difficult to say the least as there are so many unused channels on that kind of wave length. Remember, it's Phased Telemetry, meaning that it is half-half hyperspace communication wavelength and conventional covert communication, meaning you would have to break two different codes at the same time and have to be able to even find them in the first place because its two different things about knowing its in thet type of mixed wavelength frequency and another finding the frequencies it's working on, and all the while the coding is probably being changed for security measures. Sorry about the long post, hope I've helpd!  |
|
|
|
| Nerdfish |
Posted on 20-04-2006 01:41
|
|
Posts: 30 Joined: March 08 2006 |
Barrage jamming blocks all frequencies.
To subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence. -Sun-Tzu
Until your enemies decided they don't want to be subjugated any more - The fish |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 20-04-2006 08:02
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
And lights you up like a Christmas tree so bright that.... (insert consequence here) |
|
|
|
| SooperNoobie |
Posted on 29-01-2007 00:40
|
|
Posts: 3 Joined: January 29 2007 |
Quote bbarr97 wrote: I noticed NGCS fighters will primarily be unmanned drones. Has there been any significant discussion on the reliability and safety of an all drone fighter force? While many benifits can be gained from taking out the human element in fighters others are lost. I have many ways to play devils advocate regarding this situation but was first interested if this is up for discussion/debate? bbarr97 I'd have to say that drones in the long run would be better than manned ships. There would be no need for pilot training. The AI could process dynamic changes to the battlefield much more faster than a human can, depending on how well it was built. If remotely piloted, they would still be better because there would be no loss of human life. The lack of a pilot would also mean smaller size, or more room to install larger sensor packages or whatever else. All in all, I'm all for drones. All. (Whee, all spam for you all, all day!) Whee, that was a mouthful. 
Intelligence breeds insanity. Insanity reforms the weak.
|
|
|
|
| Knare |
Posted on 29-01-2007 02:07
|
|
Posts: 75 Joined: December 31 2006 |
Quote Inert wrote: EMP blasts do not work in a vacuum, there is no way to capture high energy electrons and resonate them (which is how EMP is formed). EMPs are electromagnetic energy, namely mircowaves. Mircowaves do not require a medium because they are not mechanical waves. Sound requires a material medium to travel. So in reality, there would be no sound heard in space. All the energy in a nuclear blast except the shockwave are transverse electromagnetic waves. If you were to detonate a nuke in space, no mushroom cloud would appear, but there would be a bright spherical blast containing gamma, infrared, microwave, and visible light waves. So, it is possible to have EMPs in a vacuum. I know this is an old thread but I couldn't help it. Everyone keeps saying that EMPs are inert in space but in reality they would be more effective in space. They would not be canceled by the ambient electromagnetic field generated by some celestial bodies. Edited by Knare on 29-01-2007 02:10 |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 29-01-2007 23:51
|
 Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
It's been quite a while since this topic has been brought up. It's still fuzzy for me, and I do not claim to know personally any of the topics, but only from what I've found. Yes, EMP can exist in outerspace, but the majority of the damage from EMP are gamma rays. Gamma rays can be produced from a nuclear explosion only through Compton Scattering. This requires a magnetic field as well as a medium, such as air. sources: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/....Ph.r.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_...etic_pulse |
|
|
|
| Knare |
Posted on 31-01-2007 23:26
|
|
Posts: 75 Joined: December 31 2006 |
I know its an old topic but I am not trying to call out on you. I noticed a large amount of people saying the same thing and I couldn't help it. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 01-02-2007 23:12
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
By all means, feel free to. I'm still studying Physics and plan to for a long while. There's a chance I'm completely wrong, which is why I put out my sources as verification, not because I feel you won't believe me. |
|
|
|
| Knare |
Posted on 02-02-2007 21:27
|
|
Posts: 75 Joined: December 31 2006 |
If you like physics, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is a great book on relativity, quantum physics, and the string theory. |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |