Sure and there is always going to be a limit of how many drones are useful? Especially with the proliferation of airburst ~30mm guns mounted on helicopters and ground based vehicles? The Gepard ain’t a new idea…
Pattern matching is a useful tool for war right up until the enemy evolves.
You said humans only require pb&j. Last I checked military pilots require hundreds of hours of flight training, multi million dollar helicopters, and preexisting training facility with experienced faculty.
Well yes and by the way all of that is a prerequisite to having an effective unmanned aerial force as well.
The thinking error you are making here is believing there is a way to bullshit around needing human talent and human curated datasets being constantly updated by human experts with AI.
Sure and there is always going to be a limit of how many drones are useful?
In a word, no. Not for the foreseeable future. Entropy being what it is, only one has to get through, and I could theoretically send 1,000,000 at once. Air burst rounds may take out 99.9%, but that still leaves a lot of damage occurring.
This is not how warfare works, there is always a practical limit to how much force is worth concentrating of a particular type, you don’t know what you are talking about. You keep telling me I should change my thinking based on projections you make where you assume infinite energy will be provided by datacenters or that it is easy to concentrate an infinite amount of drones together to attack the enemy without their being counters to that or inefficiencies inherent to that.
Just last week Ukraine shared a video of a single drone pilot destroying a russian Rubicon logistics hub for russian drones. One person destroying a concentration of many smaller drones is not an impossibility I don’t know why you think it is. “Scaling that up” this strategy up is also less useful when you don’t have the human intelligence work done to actually locate the target and bring together all the necessary operational elements to hit it.
AI is a useful pattern matching tool when the patterns don’t change much, that is about it.
It is the humans you need to worry about not the AI.
Exactly. And that’s the entire point. If the human success rate is (just for example) 1 out of every 100, I only have so many pilots, so I have a capped number of successes. If I have AI pilots, even if they are only half as good as humans, I can now increase my total number of successes, since I have effectively an infinite number of pilots.
That ability to bring more at once also opens more options. Overwhelming defenses may not be possible if you can only fly 1000 drones simultaneously due to quantity of pilots. Throw 10,000 AI drones at it, and a 99% attrition rate still gets you 100 drones on target.
You have done the pattern again of invoking an infinity with hand waving. 10,000 drones is an immense amount of money. If each of those drones cost $2000, a very reasonable price for a military attack drone, that is $20 million you just dropped on a single attack.
$20 million is a serious amount of money, you can buy a whole lot of counter UAS systems for that amount of money, and those systems aren’t a single use, disposable tool like the assault drones you dumped all of your money into.
A shahed costs closer to ~$30,000 than $2000 so this point holds even more true for longer range flying bombs.
Considering modern militaries throw around missiles that cost north of a $1,000,000 each, $20,000,000 for 100 successful strikes on a defended target is still operating with a discount.
Air burst rounds may take out 99.9%, but that still leaves a lot of damage occurring.
Same thing with AI cyber attacks. It won’t be the complexity so much as the scale. Not just the number of attacks, but the ability to instantly cross analyze a database of hardware & software vulnerabilities to instantly identify weaknesses from outdated or poorly configured networks.
The people that are cherry picking examples of AI failures such as coding and fact checking are ignoring the raw input & output potentials at play.
Sure and there is always going to be a limit of how many drones are useful? Especially with the proliferation of airburst ~30mm guns mounted on helicopters and ground based vehicles? The Gepard ain’t a new idea…
Pattern matching is a useful tool for war right up until the enemy evolves.
You said humans only require pb&j. Last I checked military pilots require hundreds of hours of flight training, multi million dollar helicopters, and preexisting training facility with experienced faculty.
Well yes and by the way all of that is a prerequisite to having an effective unmanned aerial force as well.
The thinking error you are making here is believing there is a way to bullshit around needing human talent and human curated datasets being constantly updated by human experts with AI.
There is not.
Wow you really dont get it. The fact that AI cant sustain your anti AI helicopters IS MY POINT
When the helicopters and human pilots run out they’ll still have less effective but still deployable AI drones.
Without that preexisting infrastructure than you cant bring the anti AI helicopters back.
In a word, no. Not for the foreseeable future. Entropy being what it is, only one has to get through, and I could theoretically send 1,000,000 at once. Air burst rounds may take out 99.9%, but that still leaves a lot of damage occurring.
This is not how warfare works, there is always a practical limit to how much force is worth concentrating of a particular type, you don’t know what you are talking about. You keep telling me I should change my thinking based on projections you make where you assume infinite energy will be provided by datacenters or that it is easy to concentrate an infinite amount of drones together to attack the enemy without their being counters to that or inefficiencies inherent to that.
Just last week Ukraine shared a video of a single drone pilot destroying a russian Rubicon logistics hub for russian drones. One person destroying a concentration of many smaller drones is not an impossibility I don’t know why you think it is. “Scaling that up” this strategy up is also less useful when you don’t have the human intelligence work done to actually locate the target and bring together all the necessary operational elements to hit it.
AI is a useful pattern matching tool when the patterns don’t change much, that is about it.
It is the humans you need to worry about not the AI.
This is literally how war is playing out right now. I can’t take you seriously.
Why are you obsessed with the fact that counter UAV solutions aren’t 100% effective?
Nothing is 100% effective?
Exactly. And that’s the entire point. If the human success rate is (just for example) 1 out of every 100, I only have so many pilots, so I have a capped number of successes. If I have AI pilots, even if they are only half as good as humans, I can now increase my total number of successes, since I have effectively an infinite number of pilots.
That ability to bring more at once also opens more options. Overwhelming defenses may not be possible if you can only fly 1000 drones simultaneously due to quantity of pilots. Throw 10,000 AI drones at it, and a 99% attrition rate still gets you 100 drones on target.
You have done the pattern again of invoking an infinity with hand waving. 10,000 drones is an immense amount of money. If each of those drones cost $2000, a very reasonable price for a military attack drone, that is $20 million you just dropped on a single attack.
$20 million is a serious amount of money, you can buy a whole lot of counter UAS systems for that amount of money, and those systems aren’t a single use, disposable tool like the assault drones you dumped all of your money into.
A shahed costs closer to ~$30,000 than $2000 so this point holds even more true for longer range flying bombs.
Considering modern militaries throw around missiles that cost north of a $1,000,000 each, $20,000,000 for 100 successful strikes on a defended target is still operating with a discount.
Oh now you’re okay with things not being perfect? fuck buddy lmao. Youre being ridiculous.
Same thing with AI cyber attacks. It won’t be the complexity so much as the scale. Not just the number of attacks, but the ability to instantly cross analyze a database of hardware & software vulnerabilities to instantly identify weaknesses from outdated or poorly configured networks.
The people that are cherry picking examples of AI failures such as coding and fact checking are ignoring the raw input & output potentials at play.