| Tango01 | 17 Feb 2018 9:57 p.m. PST |
"Artificial intelligence in conflict--from robot soldiers to cyber warfare, what will it look like? It's a question that was under discussion as this year's Munich Security Conference kicked off on Friday. Artificial intelligence in conflict--from robot soldiers to cyber warfare, what will it look like? The use of robots and artificial intelligence within the military might make the whole world more unstable.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen Former NATO Secretary General…" Main page (Video)
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
| Cacique Caribe | 17 Feb 2018 10:41 p.m. PST |
Most humans will be in denial until the very last second. Maybe even long after. Dan |
| jdginaz | 18 Feb 2018 12:35 p.m. PST |
Wont happen, they'll ever be able to develop true AI. |
| Tango01 | 18 Feb 2018 2:55 p.m. PST |
|
| Cacique Caribe | 18 Feb 2018 4:50 p.m. PST |
Jdginaz Lol. You just proved my point. Dan |
| Lion in the Stars | 18 Feb 2018 7:51 p.m. PST |
CC, the AI researchers have been swearing up and down that we are 10 years away from true AI since before I was born. Believe it when I see it, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it. |
| Ghostrunner | 18 Feb 2018 8:52 p.m. PST |
Really depends on what the definition of AI is in this context. Could we have autonomous drones with on-board target selection? Probably. Good idea? I have serious doubts. But as for the sci-fi dream of smart bombs that quote French poets while waiting for a drop order? Why would anyone want such a thing even if it were possible? |
| jdginaz | 19 Feb 2018 12:47 a.m. PST |
Every few years there is a big announcement that some group is on the verge of a major breakthrough in AI which never actually happens. |
| Cacique Caribe | 19 Feb 2018 4:44 p.m. PST |
Man will never fly! Oops.
The atom will never be split! Oops.
The sound barrier will never be broken! Oops.
Man will never make it to the Moon or beyond! Oops. There are still many other "Oops" moments in our future. Dan |
| Ghostrunner | 19 Feb 2018 4:56 p.m. PST |
Bit of a false comparison. In all those examples the end state was pretty well defined long before we had done it (landing on the moon was a pretty clear cut yes or no accomplishment). Since you'd be hard pressed to find two scientists with the same definition of what constitutes ‘Intelligence', it makes achieving the goal a little more problematic. |
| Cacique Caribe | 19 Feb 2018 5:06 p.m. PST |
"Since you'd be hard pressed to find two scientists with the same definition of what constitutes ‘Intelligence'" Incredible, isn't it? Dan |
| Walking Sailor | 20 Feb 2018 9:58 p.m. PST |
The two scientists' definition of intelligence is not important. It is the Rules Of Engagement that determine "sufficient" intelligence in a weapon. We have weapons that are sufficiently intelligent to detonate at a predetermined height above the ground. We have weapons that are sufficiently intelligent to dial the yield. With a sufficiently permissive ROE these weapons are sufficiently intelligent to do the job. Whether the weapon is sufficiently intelligent in a more restrictive ROE is determined by the weapon's ability to meet the requirements of the ROE. Intelligence is not defined by an end point. Intelligence is defined by ability. The worrying part is not the ability of a weapon to complete it's task. The worrying part is what may be considered acceptable collateral damage. |
says these Possessed Zombies would lend themselves well to a zombie game based on the world of the Evil Dead movies.
