Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 57
  1. #21
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    7,007

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Despite your fail at snark, my point still beats the snot out of your point.
    Protest much?

    Too much, maybe?

    Sensors, including night vision, are simply incapable of granting situational awareness, where eyes are.
    Thank you for backing me up there, Merv.

    "... where eyes are."

    And where eyes are not ... there's video surveillance

    At some point in the far future, when the ****berg USAF is flying their Wonder Woman Invisible Planes from the comfort of a Star Trek TNG-style holodeck, it is possible that true situational awareness might be achieved.
    At some point in the far future, you are going to start to address what people are saying instead of the sock-puppet show going on 24/7 inside your head

    Until then, here's the best simulation that the Army has to offer (a slightly advanced version of the SIMNET I used 20 years ago, coded in ADA):

    Uh-huh. Simulations. Right.

    I'll be glad to discuss this after you get on board with what I was talking about

    Happy to have attempted to educate you - sadly, I think you're unable to absorb the instruction and the underlying lesson.
    Well, gawrsh. It's just that the subject matter seems to change without warning (or any rational reason, for that matter)

    Satellites and drones, insofar as I've ever been aware, have no optics processing capability - beyond, perhaps, condensing the information into an encrypted stream for transfer back to their human controller. The processing power required for them to be able to "see" as you imagine they are able to is radically greater than their capability, and would add a huge price tag.
    I think the US Army et al can afford the cameras they employ in sats and drones. Or are you suggesting they are stolen units?

    The processing of the images obtained with these cameras is of course best dealt with by humans, with the current level computer technology available (that we know of).

    These "TV guided" systems are generally not even in service any longer; they worked on the basis of what I wrote that bachelors' degree paper about (also many years ago). They take a snapshot image of their aiming point, and then continue to "zoom in" on the target at the center of the image. If the image somehow could change shape, the missile would have lost tracking. The only one I'm aware of that had been widely employed was the AGM-65 Maverick missile, a tank-buster, and the bulk of those actually used IR imaging (as does the only other one I found, the Israeli Spike) or laser guidance, so that the big "hot spot" in the image prevented the need for extensive automated image analysis.
    Interesting. Thanks. I wasn't aware that "TV-guidance" was obsolete. Target identification and acquisition though, is still obtained through a number of techniques, presumably? Satellite, drone, human spotters and intell, for example? As distinct from the actual aiming side of things.

    Not paying attention in class - three demerits. Wait, you were the one who asked - make it five.
    I eat demerits and crap credits. I rule.

    [...]

    You work with tech; I'd hardly have expected to hear you being a "magic bullet" proponent.
    Nope. You suddenly decided that I was referring to AI (as far as I can tell) where I was talking about what soldiers on the ground can see, and what observation platforms over the battlefield can see. I should be used to your detours by now, though

  2. #22
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Protest much?

    Too much, maybe?
    How does identifying your buffoonery equate protesting?
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Thank you for backing me up there, Merv.

    "... where eyes are."

    And where eyes are not ... there's video surveillance
    Jeez, you're as thick as Steve. What's "watching" the video surveillance? Your original question was predicated on automated processing rather than human observation. As the face recognition idiocy proved, automated processing is a recipe for failure.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    At some point in the far future, you are going to start to address what people are saying instead of the sock-puppet show going on 24/7 inside your head
    Ok, so you ask about autonomous robotics, I tell you they don't work, and then you fap yourself bloody about how I don't know what "eyes" are? And I'M the one who misinterprets insanely?
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I'll be glad to discuss this after you get on board with what I was talking about
    Hey, here's a fab idea! Why don't you settle on WHAT THE FECK YOU ARE talking about, and then we can discuss that. Or better yet, not.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Well, gawrsh. It's just that the subject matter seems to change without warning (or any rational reason, for that matter)
    Gee, my fault for your irrationality now. Fun that.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I think the US Army et al can afford the cameras they employ in sats and drones. Or are you suggesting they are stolen units?
    Stupid yet again. The cost of making changes to weapons systems is incredible, and takes close to an Act of God to implement. Soldiers making field modifications, even simple ones, can risk courts martial. There's a variety of reasons the "military-industrial complex" acquisition system is so full of failure, and this is one of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    The processing of the images obtained with these cameras is of course best dealt with by humans, with the current level computer technology available (that we know of).
    This is what you are dodging for some insane reason, and trying (yet failing) to throw feces at me for stating plainly. It has nothing to do with "that we know of"; it simply doesn't work well. Now if you're done attempting to paint yourself as the "wronged" party here, we can discuss.

    What DOES work, to a increasing degree, is using automation to compare imagery in order to identify changes. At present, if you have a drone in the sky, you can automate the analysis of the camera sweep in order to identify when something is different, and alert the "pilot" as to a potential change. That's getting better not only because of automation improvements (which are computer racks in a big shed somewhere and less difficult than changing the drones themselves) but also because we've been doing it probably since the 1950's.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Interesting. Thanks. I wasn't aware that "TV-guidance" was obsolete.
    It never works well, which is what I learned from writing my paper - since I never "published", I'll summarize:

    When attempting to identify an item, there are many considerations which don't occur to casual consideration. First, a sensor is going to have at best a shallow perception of the depth of the item, and most likely is using the outline. The X-Y-Z axis variants for even a simple shape are numerous, and don't even take into account whether the item is approaching or retreating from the vantage point, which again affects the interpretation of the item.

    Identification of the item is additionally aggravated by the inability to confirm size or obscuration. The IT performing the analysis has no initial clue whether the item is a 50' tall woman, a 3" high cow, or a BMP-3 partially obscured by a billboard. When considering why laser range-finding couldn't at least guess the distance so as to eliminate one variable, then the question automatically becomes "why not use laser guidance"? The primary purpose in electro-optical imaging is the passive nature, because there's no need to shoot the item with a laser or read an IR signature from it.

    So the IT attempting to identify the item must do a number of processor-intensive tasks in doing so:
    1. Process the shape without really knowing the X-Y-Z axis facing.
    2. Comprehend the distance to the item without being able to lase it.
    3. Ensure the shape is not distorted accidentally or deliberately.


    This isn't even considering the movement of the shape which would also distort readings in all three of the above circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Target identification and acquisition though, is still obtained through a number of techniques, presumably? Satellite, drone, human spotters and intell, for example? As distinct from the actual aiming side of things.
    Target identification is generally performed using "IFF" technology, and not through visual means - however, American jet fighters (particularly the F-14 Tomcat) used TV identification - yet as I've described, this apparently was in essence a "zoom" lens so that the pilot could identify the target WITH HIS EYES.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Nope. You suddenly decided that I was referring to AI (as far as I can tell) where I was talking about what soldiers on the ground can see, and what observation platforms over the battlefield can see. I should be used to your detours by now, though
    Yah, I can't imagine where the feck I came up with the idea that you were asking specific questions about AI and autonomy. Remind me never to take a question from you in good faith again, mmmkay?

  3. #23
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    7,007

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    How does identifying your buffoonery equate protesting?
    We will find that out, once you have identified some of my buffoonery!
    In the meantime, Lady ... quit protesting.

    Jeez, you're as thick as Steve.
    That's a compliment. Coming from you, that's the biggest compliment conceivable. First you back me up in a discussion and then you start complimenting me.
    Where's this headed, Merv?

    What's "watching" the video surveillance? Your original question was predicated on automated processing rather than human observation.
    Hmm, missed your genius meds this morning, did you?
    My original question was not predicated on any such thing, it was your reading comprehension failure that has that honour.

    As the face recognition idiocy proved, automated processing is a recipe for failure.
    No argument here. People recognise faces, sometimes the smallest fraction of a face is enough for positive ID. Machines are nowhere near as good. Humans are the best fuzzy matchers.

    Ok, so you ask about autonomous robotics, I tell you they don't work, and then you fap yourself bloody about how I don't know what "eyes" are? And I'M the one who misinterprets insanely?
    Yes, you are indeed a gargantuanly insane misinterpretation machine, Merv. I's take my hat off to you but you'd think it was my shoe.

    Hey, here's a fab idea! Why don't you settle on WHAT THE FECK YOU ARE talking about, and then we can discuss that. Or better yet, not.
    It's long been a tradition on the OTF that no matter what anyone cares to discuss, it's left-wing Obamites that are to blame.

    Oh, sorry, did I accidentally jump ahead to the end of the topic?

    Gee, my fault for your irrationality now. Fun that.
    I don't think that anything is your fault, Merv. Have a think about what that means.

    Stupid yet again.
    OK, I'll wait.



    Right, you feeling better?

    The cost of making changes to weapons systems is incredible, and takes close to an Act of God to implement.
    Here on the Pissant Rock, we call that an Act of Parliament but then again, we don't have a theocracy in charge. Oh wait, the Monarch is the Head of the Church of England. OMG! *mind blown*

    Soldiers making field modifications, even simple ones, can risk courts martial. There's a variety of reasons the "military-industrial complex" acquisition system is so full of failure, and this is one of them.
    Ah, OK. Coffee break time again so soon?



    This is what you are dodging for some insane reason, and trying (yet failing) to throw feces at me for stating plainly.
    Actually, this was what would would have both agreed with, had you not weirdly and spontaneously decided that I was arguing in favour of autonomous systems.
    However, we can still argue about auto-systems later, if you are up to it. I'd say the argument would be short as we both agree on that subject but experience here shows that my fiercest disagreements IRL are nowhere near as rancorous as agreements between you and I.
    And why are you holding onto my feces, for crying out loud. Get rid!

    It has nothing to do with "that we know of"; it simply doesn't work well. Now if you're done attempting to paint yourself as the "wronged" party here, we can discuss.
    I prefer my version of painting myself to yours - and you still haven't put those feces down. Ugh.

    What DOES work, to a increasing degree, is using automation to compare imagery in order to identify changes. At present, if you have a drone in the sky, you can automate the analysis of the camera sweep in order to identify when something is different, and alert the "pilot" as to a potential change. That's getting better not only because of automation improvements (which are computer racks in a big shed somewhere and less difficult than changing the drones themselves) but also because we've been doing it probably since the 1950's.
    Entirely sensible contribution here. Appreciated!

    It never works well, which is what I learned from writing my paper - since I never "published", I'll summarize:

    [solid work snipped]
    Solid work, Merv.

    Target identification is generally performed using "IFF" technology, and not through visual means - however, American jet fighters (particularly the F-14 Tomcat) used TV identification - yet as I've described, this apparently was in essence a "zoom" lens so that the pilot could identify the target WITH HIS EYES.
    Pattern recognition of 3-D shapes is a strength that humans possess. However, how does the zoom effect the stereoscopic function of a pair of eyes - are we not back to 2-D representations of 3-D, as discussed above?

    Yah, I can't imagine where the feck I came up with the idea that you were asking specific questions about AI and autonomy. Remind me never to take a question from you in good faith again, mmmkay?
    OK! But you will forget and I will neglect to remind you. Nevertheless and notwithstanding, I will indulge you this time, although your schtick is a little bit of a cliché here in OTFLand.

    AI and autonomy are indeed a part of the thread, but they were not relevant to the specific point at which you became hysterical. I'll precis it for you.
    I implied that eyes over the battlefield (the guy in the Apache) could do what troops on the ground cannot (situationally) achieve - not without incurring losses, anyway - which is to provide a clear picture of the location and of enemy troop placements. I suggested that an overview can spot things the ground troops cannot, it's implicit in my phrasing. I am not saying this is the only way to achieve what I am talking about, only that it can and does happen that way.

    At that point, you threw a fainting fit and (effectively) claimed that AI is no substitute for Mk1 eyeball.

    This is not an isolated instance, this is something you do with hilarious regularity. Someone will say that they enjoy apples and you drop from an over-hanging tree branch onto them, yelling that non-sweetened orange juice is the left-wing, COMINTERN plot to cause us all to pucker our lips because Mao Tse Obama likes to see that look on our faces. Do you see?

  4. #24
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    In the interest of space, I won't fisk and will simply break this into two sections; the feces and the topic. Subsequently I will ignore the topic, as you've thoroughly pissed me off in this regard so I'll throw no more pearls of informed wisdom before you.

    Feces:
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    AI and autonomy are indeed a part of the thread, but they were not relevant to the specific point at which you became hysterical. I'll precis it for you.
    I implied that eyes over the battlefield (the guy in the Apache) could do what troops on the ground cannot (situationally) achieve - not without incurring losses, anyway - which is to provide a clear picture of the location and of enemy troop placements. I suggested that an overview can spot things the ground troops cannot, it's implicit in my phrasing. I am not saying this is the only way to achieve what I am talking about, only that it can and does happen that way.

    At that point, you threw a fainting fit and (effectively) claimed that AI is no substitute for Mk1 eyeball.
    The discussion was as follows:
    Another thing I haven't seen in this thread, or in the other one, is a discussion of the issue regarding so called "robot warriors". These are systems that employ killing force without the direct and ongoing input of human beings. Think Robocop "You have twenty seconds to comply" type robots. How are we on that issue?

    I referred to the difficulty with imaging, the same issue I've been on the whole time, illustrated by even <HUMAN> perception being distorted through sensor suites as seen with the Wikileaks incident, followed by YOUR turning the issue Apache-specific:
    The problems with a guy on an air force base in ****berg, La and what he can see on his Satellite feed aren't really all that different from what a human riding an Apache can see on his monitors right there at the scene of the battle. In both cases, it's likely that the visibility is equal to or better than that of a grunt on the ground. Seems like a nonsense argument to me.

    Your "phrasing" is worthless and weak; the same "argument" can be made about standing in a tower or floating in a balloon, yet you didn't somehow claim I was freaking about about really tall stilts or helium. You deliberately (or stupidly, since I'll no longer rule that out) equated a specific tool type (optic sensors) with the general concept of improving visibility and decreasing the 'fog'. In all circumstances, visibility will be distorted -whether through distance, shakiness on the stilts, or whatever - and potentially likely to cause a loss of perception. It's why after the disastrous 1950's war-fighting concepts we recognized that the Infantry is still the way a war will be fought, and always will be. There is no good substitute for direct human participation in violent conditions, be they war, emergency, or cleaning out your zoo cage.

    Simply put, you asked about autonomous robots, I responded that they have too much trouble "seeing" things, and you went ape-shyte on me for stating the obvious. "High Tech" can barely get vehicles to drive on a road safely, much less negotiate obstacle courses, so there's no way we're going to arm them and let them decide on sensor input what is or is not a target.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    This is not an isolated instance, this is something you do with hilarious regularity. Someone will say that they enjoy apples and you drop from an over-hanging tree branch onto them, yelling that non-sweetened orange juice is the left-wing, COMINTERN plot to cause us all to pucker our lips because Mao Tse Obama likes to see that look on our faces. Do you see?
    Not really; I see that people of your ilk like to make sweeping, ignorant statements and then get all butthurt when I slap them down for doing so.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    My original question was not predicated on any such thing, it was your reading comprehension failure that has that honour.
    Your original question was about "robot warriors". These are systems that employ killing force without the direct and ongoing input of human beings. I was responding specifically <AND REASONABLY> to that concept, the most obvious failing of which is the systems' perceptive capability.

    Since the bulk of your response is filled with additional sniping and flung dung, I'll just leave with this:



    "Dick, I'm very disappointed." I may go see Robocop 2014 at the theater.

  5. #25
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    7,007

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    The problems with a guy on an air force base in ****berg, La and what he can see on his Satellite feed aren't really all that different from what a human riding an Apache can see on his monitors right there at the scene of the battle. In both cases, it's likely that the visibility is equal to or better than that of a grunt on the ground. Seems like a nonsense argument to me.

    It's a battle - you can see stuff or you can't, that's war for you. No one's wearing the necessary white and black hats.
    Merv, have a word with yourself, will you?

    My quote above was the jumping-off point for your latest kamikaze-charge. You can see we were talking - I was talking, anyway - about human oversight-based systems. You decided you were going to tear down the idea of AI-controlled warfare, which it terms of the flow of the thread, came straight out of left-field and headed off for Altair-4, as far as I can tell.

    Now, calm yourself. And let go of the feces already.

  6. #26
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Glad to see my "thickness" is appreciated.

  7. #27
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,219

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    @Loz & jmerv: I for myself think that debates can be fought aggressively, but without more or less sophisticated personal attacks and variants of the f word and word plays like "fapping". It makes me.. well, let's call it sad. Nothing productive will come from that and none of the involved persons will feel satisfaction at the end.

    I normally stay the hell out of these issues, but perhaps I can be regarded as a neutral instance who happens to wear a green hat, but won't act on it. My fingers itch a bit to intervene, but I'm sure that Dredd has an eye on this, as well as a strategy to deal with the issue.
    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  8. #28
    IncGamers Member BobCox2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UnderYourDoorMat
    BattleTag What Me Worry?
    Posts
    10,825

  9. #29
    IncGamers Member nurman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland (+2.GMT)
    BattleTag nurman-2854
    Posts
    4,868

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Ethics of warfare, 101.


  10. #30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •