On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> At best, a virtual cockpit like they use for professional airplane
> simulators, with data coming in as close to real-time as possible, and
> controls laid out more or less like in a "real" fighter.
The military being what it is then, that is what they will go for (as soon
as it is achievable). After all, these are the guys who now spend 1-2
billion $ for the expensive bombers and aircraft carriers. Seems to me
that once they can achieve that, they will start trying to make the
pilotless plane as autonomous as possible, with maximum AI onboard. Maybe
even enough AI to improve upon its own hardware and software and evolve
into a better fighter plane in its noncombat time. Anyway I'm quite
impressed by the US Navy's GA list <GA-list@aic.nrl.navy.mil>. They don't
seem to miss much of GA that is going on in the world.
FWP.
Autopilot for
> flight, takeoff, and landing, so that the pilot's active attention is
> only required when getting to the combat zone, though the pilot may be
> present whenever the aircraft goes through potentially hostile airspace
> just in case. One could use this system to have multiple jets cycling
> in and out of an airspace, but only need a few pilots swapping their
> controls between these planes (the rest either coming or going on auto,
> or in the hangar being serviced for their next launch). Count on the
> military seeing this version.
>
> At worst, a video screen and a two-button PC joystick, with a keyboard.
> Don't be surprised to see this marketed as a spinoff source of revenue
> on the game market (which you and I might see) as "the real thing". If
> that happens, don't be surprised to see people to get up in arms because
> Our Enemies might buy the game, practice on it, then use it as their
> interface when they hack into the plane's controls and turn these planes
> against The Free World (even though any remote control would be
> *heavily* secured, to the point where any possible hacks would be, at
> most, barely theoretically possible even to one of our pilots going
> traitor).
>
> ...
>
> Sorry. I've had a long day fighting the forces of stupidity.
>
> Franklin Wayne Poley wrote:
> >
> > I don't know yet. Hopefully Boeing will answer. If it is remote control as
> > you say below, how would you envisage that? What about a remote human
> > pilot surrounded by a kind of VR set with all the images from the
> > dog-fight before him/her and the capacity to react which will immediately
> > be delivered to the pilotless plane? Or something else?
> > FWP
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >
> > > Are you sure that by "pilotless", Boeing isn't just referring to
> > > no-pilot-in-the-airplane? There's a difference between remote control
> > > and AI.
> > >
> > > Franklin Wayne Poley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Given that the X-45 will be autonomous and not under tele-robotic control,
> > > > how would you rate its overall AI capabilities?
> > > > FWP
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley <fwpoley@vcn.bc.ca>
> > > > Reply-To: EDTV-Robotics-State-Of-The-Art@egroups.com
> > > > To: wwwmail.boeing@pss.boeing.com
> > > > Cc: edtv-robotics-state-of-the-art@egroups.com
> > > > Subject: [EDTV-Robotics-State-Of-The-Art] X-45's Machine Vision System re
> > > > "Human Equivalency"
> > > >
> > > > Dear Boeing:
> > > > Last night a CTV news clip showed sketches of the X-45, a
> > > > pilotless fighter craft which Boeing expects to have ready for use by
> > > > 2010. However, I couldn't find it on your web site. Could you please
> > > > direct me to someone who would be able to answer a few questions for a
> > > > proposed educational television program on robotics-state-of-the-art?
> > > > In particular I am wondering about the X-45's artificial vision system.
> > > > If the pilotless fighter is to be competitive with humans it must have an
> > > > artifificial vision and object recognition system to surpass that of
> > > > humans, ie to exceeed "human equivalency". What current technologies make
> > > > Boeing confident that the X-45 will surpass human equivalency in this
> > > > sense?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you-FWP
> > > >
> > > > http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> > > > Find out Anything about Anyone!
> > > > NET DETECTIVE 2000
> > > > Use the internet to investigate anyone!
> > > > http://click.egroups.com/1/9016/17/_/_/_/970174036/
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > EDTV-Robotics-State-Of-The-Art-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> > >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Machine Psychology:
> > <http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machine Psychology:
<http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:21 MDT