AI

> exact context, a simple "reflex" system will do the job. Forex if a

Ah yes! The great Vulcan defense systems of the grav tanks in Renegade Legion:
Centurion. They rocked.:)

> Roger Books wrote:

Speaking as probably the only person on this list who's actually
designed and built a military-grade AI (for naval anti-missle defence),
I'm not so sure. You don't have to have something much smarter than an ant, or
at best a frog, to be really useful.
Some large percentage of the time - 50%, 90%, 99% ,depending on the
exact context, a simple "reflex" system will do the job. Forex if a tank
defence system detects an object incoming at 500-1500 km/h (or whatever)
and it's heading directly towards the tank being defended, it doesn't have to
know very much in order to take appropriate action. Similarly an
object heading in at 3000+ km/h will be treated as a hostile long-rod
penetrator. Yes, it might be a piece of shrapnel. It might even be friendly
fire. But if the projected path intersects the defended tank, it will be
treated as a Baddie, and dealt with.

In the case of a tank, a lot of the routine decisions, such as selecting ammo
options and programming the FC computers accordingly, can be done
automatically with no more smarts than a Z-80, and done faster. The easy
bits should be automated, as very often the requirement is a really

G'day guys,

> Speaking as probably the only person on this list who's actually

Though not military AI I know of a lot of work on AIs (for robot
navigation) which are currently underway and based on ants/bees/various
other insects/owls/toads and a hedgehog (that one's got me stumped too).

Cheers

Beth

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:29:14 +1000, Alan E and Carmel J Brain
> <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:

> Speaking as probably the only person on this list who's actually

I've studiously avoided the AI debate. I got involved in an AI debate on this
list last year. Or was it two years ago? Anyway, my argument was that you're
not going to see "manned" fighters by the time the Tuffleyverse comes around.
Instead, fighters will be AI run.

The counter argument was the old "humans are not predictable, AI is" argument
(although ask Kasparov what he thinks about that... *L*).

Personally, I found it strangely comforting that most people in the discussion
were willing to believe in human fighter pilots 200 years plus in the future.
It gave credence to the sci-fi authors who still want humans behind
fighter controls.

However, I personally don't think that human "unpredictability" will win out
against lightning fast reactions and 30 g (40 g? 50 g? 60+ g) high speed
turns.

Why am I haveing visions of a live insect brain in a weapons guidence system.
A wetware brain interfaced to a weapon may in the future be as cost and weight
effective.

Andy

[quoted original message omitted]

> Andy wrote:

Pigeons are easier to train. This was done in the fifties with the idea of
using pigeons to pilot ICBMs.

> Beth Fulton wrote:

> >You don't have to have something much smarter than an ant, or at best

Didn't know about the Hedgehog. Mammals are complex, orders of magnitude

> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:

The Coast Guard used pigeons to look for survivors at sea. They had a cage
built under an HH-52 helicopter and they would peck at one of three
switches, left right or center and that would make an indicator light in the
cockpit. The pilots were to steer to the light. Unfortunately the
HH-52
had a sometimes tempremental engine and while testing had to do an unplanned
water landing.  Pidgeon cage was underwater when the -52 was floating on
its boat shaped hull.:(

Magic

[quoted original message omitted]

and a hedgehog (that one's got me stumped too).
> [quoted text omitted]
You can pack more explosive in a robot hedgehog:)

G'day guys,

> Didn't know about the Hedgehog. Mammals are complex...

Foraging as far as I know.

> Any URLs handy?

Sorry no, adding urls to (biological) science journal articles is only a
relatively new thing.

Cheers

Beth

[quoted original message omitted]

G'day Ryan,

> I just can't figure out wy someone would want to study them for AI,

They're small, easy to look after (in comparison to many mammalian predators
at least) and have a fairly typical mammalian predator foraging behaviour
which is linked to a fairly successful defense mechanism. I think they just
happened to be the best combination of features in the smallest
package for the study - the researcher may also have been a hedgehog fan
;)

Cheers

Beth

> Beth Fulton wrote:

> >Didn't know about the Hedgehog. Mammals are complex...

Aha, All is Revealed. A lot of this is almost hard-wired IIRC.

> Beth Fulton wrote:

> I think

That has the ring of truth to it. If you only knew how many military R&D
projects started not because of any good military reason but because somebody
had a "thing" for Rockets, or Hydrogen Peroxide, or Nuclear Fission, or Big
Guns, or Anthrax, or.....