The Pub Discussion Board

Get your favorite beverage, sit back, and join in the discussion

You are not logged in.

#51 2018-01-11 23:31:49

howard
Inebriated
Registered: 2016-12-01
Posts: 20

Re: CASS

Crusader wrote:

Cant monkeys wrap the tail around themselves belt like? Would keep it out of the way for the metro...
You could have a third hole in your undergarments/pants. Slip your tail in just like your legs.

Im more conserened about how it would look, we dont have fur, so the image that comes to mind is a shaved rat tail. Ewwww.

I believe some can. I was thinking of those who can't keep their hands under control, what they might do with a tail...
A third hole might be rather inconvenient for visiting the bathroom, rather more frequently so for females.
Shaved rat tail... perhaps you are right - if we can't fix baldness of the scalp then I doubt if we could fix congenital tail baldness :-)

Offline

 

#52 2018-01-11 23:59:41

Centaur
Inebriated
From: Memphis, TN
Registered: 2006-12-08
Posts: 27

Re: CASS

just think of the new industry's, tail rings, tail tattoos, tail socks to keep them warm.

Offline

 

#53 2018-01-12 00:37:23

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

... Is no one else going to say it?

Sheesh.

If you have any control over it at all, guys get to give a girl DP without any help!!!

3dbig_smile

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#54 2018-01-12 01:50:15

Centaur
Inebriated
From: Memphis, TN
Registered: 2006-12-08
Posts: 27

Re: CASS

fun until she decides to return the favor 3dsmile

Offline

 

#55 2018-01-12 08:38:15

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

All such acts require consent...

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#56 2019-02-02 18:07:23

gadget
Inebriated
From: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Registered: 2007-07-19
Posts: 22

Re: CASS

In my opinion, this story needs multiple new chapters ASAP!

(posted from Chapter 3)

Offline

 

#57 2020-10-18 22:12:21

rlcsub63
Tipsy
Registered: 2020-09-16
Posts: 8

Re: CASS

Is the rest of this story coming any time soon?

Offline

 

#58 2020-10-18 23:11:28

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

Geologically speaking, absolutely!  3dangel

I have absolutely no idea when CASS will be continued.  I would like to do so, but it simply hasn't 1) pricked my muse's interest, or 2) garnered enough attention from the readers to force my muse into action.

Sorry.
Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#59 2021-10-08 14:51:17

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

A quick question, just to get people's thoughts.  I already have my own story-canon answer to this question, but I want to see what you guys think.

In CASS, we have pilot-manned spacecraft.

Question:  Why?

Given that the US military is already trending toward unmanned combat vehicles (covering land, sea and air with that term), why, 200 years from now, would there be actual pilots in the planes?  Especially given the significantly higher speeds that would be involved in space combat...

Thoughts?  Again, I have already come up with a story-acceptable answer to this question, but as I haven't written anything about it yet, my answer could change...

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#60 2021-10-08 22:49:11

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Eric Storm wrote:

A quick question, just to get people's thoughts.  I already have my own story-canon answer to this question, but I want to see what you guys think.

In CASS, we have pilot-manned spacecraft.

Question:  Why?

Given that the US military is already trending toward unmanned combat vehicles (covering land, sea and air with that term), why, 200 years from now, would there be actual pilots in the planes?  Especially given the significantly higher speeds that would be involved in space combat...

Thoughts?  Again, I have already come up with a story-acceptable answer to this question, but as I haven't written anything about it yet, my answer could change...

Eric Storm

I need to do a touch organising here but in brief I do not think we will ever be able to trust artificial intelligence to fight in combat. Remote guidance is also out because anything can be hacked or at least jammed. In response to reaction times, yes the plane will have to be very smart. Our cars have several computers already and our war planes have a lot of fly-by-wire tech. What we will see in the future will be direct neural control. with computer assist this will increase reaction times by orders of magnitude. What you might see is one manned fighter with 2-3 slaved drones so that they all four fight as one unit
Does that prompt any thoughts Eric? And to say the current military is trending to unmanned is an oversimplification. We are having some sucsess with remote drones and even some with pure robotics. But combat aircraft still exist and will be necessary. Those drone strikes are uncontested for instance and the Navy is likely to have a robotic tanker very soon. Remember also remote can be hacked They would not work nearly as good used against a more competant enemy


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#61 2021-10-09 02:02:43

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Eric based on your recent query I hope you are thinking active thoughts about this story again. If there is anything at all I can do to encourage or help with that please ask. I just reread what is written to familialise myself with the storyline again

(posted from Chapter 3)

Last edited by ChiefRock (2021-10-09 02:04:36)


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#62 2021-10-09 05:18:40

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

This story is never far from my mind.  I like science fiction.  But this one is another job of world-building from scratch, and that isn't easy to tackle sometimes.  As questions like the one I just posed demonstrate.

Now, as to your points concerning UCV:  Note I said "trending", not "we're going to be there next week".  But I'm talking about a story 200 years into our future.  Consider what military tech was 200 years ago.  And hell, we already have one of the Joint Chiefs (I think it was) who actually said that the F-35 would be the last manned fighter we produce.  Now, I think he's got his head up his ass, but that is the way they're thinking in Washington.

Also, your comment about reaction times in fighter planes:  Making the plane react faster is not, in fact, helpful.  Our fighter pilots are already pulling 9G's, which is pretty much the human limit for acceleration tolerance.  You go much above that, and the human being passes out.  The craft reacting faster would mean even sharper turns, which would drastically increase the G-load.

For story purposes, this is where the science fiction handwavium comes in, and we give our fighter planes artificial gravity of some form, which eliminates the external G-forces altogether... but then you also come up against the human reaction time.

Consider:  The escape velocity of Earth is (very) roughly 25,000 mph.  That means that our space fighters - which are atmosphere capable - are traveling in the realm of, say, 30,000mph, or 44,000 feet per second, at a minimum.  Human reaction time is approximately 0.2 seconds, in which time, you will have traveled 8800 feet.  Or 1 2/3 miles.  In literally the blink of an eye.  Space fighter engagements would have to take place at long distances to make humans "useful" as pilots.  As to increasing reaction times by "orders of magnitude"... You can't.  There is no way for a computer to make people think faster.  Either you have to wait for the slow-poke human, or the computer has to do the thinking for him.  If the computer's already doing the thinking for him, why does he need to be in the plane?

Also, there is a really, REALLY good reason NOT to use neural control.  At least, not of the type you mean where, "You think it, the airplane does it."  And that is that it would be next to impossible for the computer to discern the difference between a planning/"what if" process, and the actual desire to make the thought-about maneuvers.  Imagine you try to think to yourself, "What might he do if I do this?"  And you see it in your head... and suddenly your AI neural net goes ahead and does it???  There would always have to be some kind of menuing of commands... and I think that would honestly turn out to not be any faster than just telling your hand to do it.

The computers inside of future fighters would, I think, basically become your "back-seater", your RIO.  It would keep check of all the systems, watch out for the bad guys, let you know what your weapons states were... do all that stuff that you're a little too busy to be fussing about.

As to hacking and jamming remote signals:  There are ways around both of these problems.  Encryption systems are available now that would make it entirely impossible for someone to hack into a system.  I don't think they're in use in drone control transmissions, but in 200 years?  And jamming is the same way: frequency agility can kill a lot of the problem with jamming, unless they're just completely flooding the area with electronic noise... in which case you send in the home-on-jam cruise missiles in front of the drones.  Problem solved.

In 200 years, it's also possible that we're not using RF anymore, and our drones are controlled via laser-satellite uplink.  This would be almost completely impervious to both hacking and jamming, because you'd have to be in the path of the laser beam directly.  (You would also have to use the right kind of laser, to make it through cloud cover... that kind of high-energy physics is beyond me, but I'm pretty sure it's possible to do...  Hell, if nothing else, you have a second laser that's designed to just vaporize the clouds that are in the path of the comm laser...)

It's impossible to even rationally guess what kind of tech we'll have in 200 years, really.  Is it reasonable to think we could, by then, make a completely autonomous combat aircraft?  Absolutely.  SHOULD we?  Well... that's the question, isn't it?  And what kinds of weapons will our fighters have, manned or otherwise?

We already know that they carry particle beam weapons.  We know the bigger ships carry MEP guns (Modulated Electromagnetic Pulse), lasers, probably larger particle beam weapons, and maybe rail guns.  We know they still use missiles of some kind, though what kind of propulsion source is debatable.

So... autonomous and remote control UCVs are by no means ruled out by the things you've mentioned.  But something must rule them out, since they're not the primary fighting force in the story.

(And again, I already have an answer to this question.  I'm just trying to see if anyone else has a better one.)

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#63 2021-10-09 12:46:56

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Without agreeing to your statement that reaction times can be increased  (yes there is a ceiling but we are far from it) or that jamming can be countered. The biggest reason is you cannot trust an AI in combat. We used to discuss this all the time when I was in uniform. We had some bright guys and they would tear up every idea but the trust factor. You can build one and by eliminating enviromental systems including inertial dampner tech (Anti grav) You could build in more armament or range.  But if you got a computer smart enough to fly in combat it would be smart enough to say hell no I won't go or would go insane. Please do not turn a warplane loose with a electronic brain


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#64 2021-10-09 12:53:11

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Without agreeing to your statement that reaction times can be increased  (yes there is a ceiling but we are far from it) or that jamming can be countered. The biggest reason is you cannot trust an AI in combat. We used to discuss this all the time when I was in uniform. We had some bright guys and they would tear up every idea but the trust factor. You can build one and by eliminating enviromental systems including inertial dampner tech (Anti grav) You could build in more armament or range.  But if you got a computer smart enough to fly in combat it would be smart enough to say hell no I won't go or would go insane. Please do not turn a warplane loose with a electronic brain. BTW the neural can be trained into a pilot they are already using point and shoot tech for chin guns on helos The pilots have to train to look at targets in order to aim. It is hard but they do it. not all this causes a lot of washouts and likely the direct neural stuff would wash out even more but there would be enough. All it would mean is that fighter pilots would be even harder to live with. They already think their crap does not stink


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#65 2021-10-09 14:15:49

darthel0101
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2013-08-18
Posts: 252

Re: CASS

Regarding jamming of communications: incorporate quantum entanglement. IIRC, that concept bypasses any attempted interference by ignoring the space-time continuum.

Regarding AI capabilities: first you build the strictures, then you add the command structures. Remember though, covert actions/identities are always a possibility in adversarial situations. How do you design your AI to identify them and protect itself?

Offline

 

#66 2021-10-09 15:46:29

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Quantum entanglement like Einsteins spooky behavior at a distance? Yes theoretically this will be jam proof more importantly will likely reduce the light speed factor or eliminate it entirely. Believing that someone will not invent a way to intefere though is speculative. At one time you could not jam radar. Just how many work arounds are there now? You came up with your own argument against AI tech


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#67 2021-10-09 21:43:09

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

ChiefRock wrote:

But if you got a computer smart enough to fly in combat it would be smart enough to say hell no I won't go or would go insane. Please do not turn a warplane loose with a electronic brain.

You'll note I said absolutely nothing about the problem of trusting an AI with firepower.  The one question I don't think anyone can answer safely is, Can an AI be given immutable rules to follow?  Could you, as a for-instance, instill Asimov's Three Laws into an AI, and not have the AI learn to somehow violate, ignore, or rewrite them?  (NOT that the Three Laws would be good rules for a UCV, I'm just using them as an example).  My personal belief is that, like with a human, there is no way to create an absolute rule, which means you'd have to rely on them "agreeing" to behave.

BTW the neural can be trained into a pilot they are already using point and shoot tech for chin guns on helos The pilots have to train to look at targets in order to aim.

Okay, I'll assume you're referring to the Apache's aiming system.  This has nothing to do with the computer reading the pilot's thoughts in any way, shape, or form.  The computer senses the orientation of the pilot's helmet, and aims the gun/sensors based on that.  The reason that so many have trouble with this is that you are often not aiming where you're flying, and looking in two directions at the same time is hard.  (Hey, maybe I'd make a good Apache pilot!  My eyes already do that!  3dbig_smile )

As to reaction times:  No, the 0.2-second reaction time cannot be reduced.  I'm not talking about the time it takes you to initiate some kind of behavior.  I'm talking about the amount of time it takes for your brain to say, "Oh, I just received some new bit of information, and I should do something about it."  That process takes over 0.2 seconds, for both audio and visual stimulus.  This is not a number that can be reduced: it is inherent in the human brain.  We are not designed to think that quickly.  Those dangers that we evolved to deal with, that might happen faster than that, we developed reflexes for.  Reflexes aren't something that can be trained in.  Reflexes don't even happen in the brain, they happen in the nervous system.

darthel:

I was trying to avoid the mention of quantum entanglement, since I'm using it in another story already.  3dsmile

It does, however, eliminate the possibility of both jamming and hacking.  (No, ChiefRock, there is no means to interfere with this, because the two particles are linked in such a way that, what happens to one, happens to the other.  There is no actual "transmission" going on.  It is the equivalent of something being in two places at the same time.  And yes, it would completely eliminate the light-speed-induced delays in communication, because communication is instantaneous at all ranges. )

But when you said you build in the strictures first, and then the command structures... the question is, could an AI violate the strictures?  Humans can.  If you've built an AI smart enough to replace a human in the cockpit, why would it not also be able to do so?  Somehow, you would have to write in immutable programming at the core of the AI... AND then find a way to force it to not ignore that programming.  AND then force it to not ignore the programming you wrote to force it not to ignore the central...  you see where I'm going?  The whole point of an AI is that it can modify its programming.  How do you then tell it, "You can modify everything but this." ?

The concern about an AI protecting itself from covert action is a complete non-issue.  An AI would be at least as good at this as a human is.  Probably better, because AIs would not suffer from confirmation bias.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#68 2021-10-09 23:31:38

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Please remember this is just discussion On Quantum entanglement what you say is current theory. Notice I used the word theory because we cannot do it yet. I used the example of radar to point out that eventually they may well be able to intefere if Jamming is the inappropriate word. And reflexes can be trained that is what martial arts does and they often react faster than .2 seconds. It is not easy to train and everyone cannot learn how and yes i threw the apache system out as an example  of training reflexes and reaction time. Talk to fighter pilots they train to think ahead of the plane. Anyone who tries to think with the plane crashes or is shot down.  There are several systems that would be needed we cannot do direct neural commands yet either. I am postulating it can be done but will be hard and not everyone will be able to be trained. Inertia dampening is not possible yet either but the scientists are working on it. All I am doing Eric, other than enjoying this discussion is trying to give you ideas. If you cannot use them then you are the author


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#69 2021-10-10 01:33:27

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

I understand it's just a discussion.  But, as a discussion, I have to point out where your ideas have holes, so that we can come up with stronger ideas.

First, quantum entanglement:  Let me state up front that me trying to read information about quantum mechanics is about as easy (and as much fun) as reading a book on existentialism that has been translated by Google Translate through 42 different languages and back into English.  Having said that, what I've read makes it clear that QE isn't just a theory.  It has actually been achieved in the lab.  Now, it isn't practical to use it for anything right now, but we know it exists as a "thing".

Now, because of what QE is, there isn't a transmitted signal to interfere with.  The only way to break the entanglement is to directly affect one or the other of the particles.  Unless that can be done, the particles will always "know what the other one is doing".  They act, essentially, as a single particle.

Now, second, reaction time:  After further research, I have discovered that, while .25s is the average reaction time, our best fighter pilots (and best video game players) already have reaction times down in the .075s (75ms) range.  Understand that 0.013s (13ms) is an absolute, hard limit.  By which, I mean it takes you that long to actually perceive something, before you can react at all.  That leaves basically 0.06s (60ms) of reaction time that you could even theoretically improve.  I simply cannot agree that we're going to improve these numbers significantly by attaching a computer to our head.  The only way it might improve is that you would no longer need to take the time to transmit signals to the muscles.  On the other hand, your brain is having to translate perceptions into commands for the computer to execute - however that's going to happen - and that may very well eat up whatever time you just saved.

And finally, your point about fighter pilots thinking "ahead of the plane" is making my point for me: a pilot isn't actively thinking about what the plane is doing "right now", he's thinking about what the plane needs to do seconds from now.  How is the computer supposed to know that? 

Pilot: Okay, we clear this ridge, then we'll roll left and drop down into the valley...
Computer: My pilot is thinking about a 120-degree left aileron roll.  Okay, let's do that.
WHAM!!!!
Computer: Ow.  Why did my pilot just fly me into a mountain?

Okay, yes, being silly, but this is the point I'm trying to make:  Pilots are thinking about several different maneuvers at once.  Getting a computer to determine which one you intend to execute now is likely to be virtually impossible.

I don't consider this a problem just for fighter pilots, mind you.  I don't think computers will ever be able to interface directly with the human mind, because we just don't "think that way".  The human mind takes strange twists and turns in its thinking that make no logical sense.  Intuitive leaps seem to come from nowhere.  Memories are triggered by seemingly random things.  Even in the midst of intense mental operations, random thoughts will flit through your mind.  I'm just of the belief that a computer simply won't ever be able to process that into something usable.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#70 2021-10-10 05:08:42

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

There are going to be limits yes. It seems I have achieved one goal I have started you thinking on what may happen and challenged the reaction time limit. I never really liked the idea of a computer directly attached to a brain either. at least current computers. I recall being fascinated with organic computers (I do not remember right now which Sci fi world brought these out first) but since they are organic ergo they should have limits as to speed also. There was also crystal tech such as you are exploring in one of your universes right now (AOC). There is a lot that can happen in that scenario but I see no advantage with our current discussion. I am dying to know what your work around is here (why human pilots are still being used) but I know you will not tell me yet. Would you some day if you ever resolve this dilemma? I have shared all the reasons I have heard of and yes this is not a new topic. The eggheads will likely be trying this in 500 years. Personally I do not think pilots will ever become obsolete

Last edited by ChiefRock (2021-10-10 05:29:41)


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#71 2021-10-10 07:36:06

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

Though they tend never to delve into specifics, all "organic" actually means is "made of carbon".  Though I imagine what they really mean is "Thinks like a biological organism"... which would be a good way for everyone around the computer to die a horrible death, for all the reasons I mentioned about the way humans think earlier...

Computer:  "Activating airlocks... careful... careful... OOH A SPACE-SQUIRREL!!!  Ahem, sorry, what was I do- Wait, why is everyone dead?  Where the hell did my atmosphere go???"

3dbig_smile

And trust me, I knew all about "what may happen" with AIs long before this discussion started.  Self-aware computers scare the ever-loving shit out of me.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#72 2021-10-10 21:26:26

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

A writer name of Ian Douglas has a series out called star carrier. They use quantum coupling and neural control but with a twist. the pilot lies in a full sensory holo bed and is connected real time to his fighter through direct neural and quantum coupling. The writer agrees with you on unjammable but has the reflex training concept to increase reaction time. There are limits as far as distance from the carrier but mostly within a system you are in range. The quantum coupling apparently has no distance limit but other factors seem to be in play. I like this scenario because each pilot flys one ship and has three others slaved to him basically he fights 4 as one


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#73 2021-10-11 14:14:21

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

The problem with that concept... at least without having read the book... is all four planes would have to be performing the exact same maneuver.  Either that, or the "slave planes" would have to have a catalog of maneuvers, and the pilot just picked one for each plane.

Human beings cannot multitask.  I don't mean "they're not good at it".  I mean they can't.  What we do is actually "task-switching", and at that, we just suck.  So, again, not having read the book, I don't know the details, but I don't see how one person is going to fly four planes, unless they're all "locked in sync", so to speak.

As to the reaction time... we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  I'm of the belief that, if it was possible for humans to have a faster reaction time, the gamers would have developed it by now.  The kind of machines they're playing on these days, the frame rates are actually higher than human perception time.  (13ms = 77fps.  Anything higher than that, and you're not actually seeing each frame anymore.  You can't.  Gamers are running games at >100fps speeds these days.)  Since they play against each other, developing faster reaction times would always be a benefit.  Since they haven't, I can only assume they can't.  Oh, maybe a few freakishly fast people out there, but as a group, I just don't see it.

Now, since you are the only person to significantly contribute to this concept (not to ignore darthel, but he only posted once, I think...), I'll go ahead and tell you what I came up with.  (There's no reason for me not to do so.  This isn't exactly a plot point, it's world information, or backstory.)

The first part is exactly what you suggest:  When combat AI was let loose on the world, it very quickly started making its own decisions, which ended up with it hitting unintended targets.  (In my world, I chose not to have the AIs turn on their masters, but they made strategic decisions about better targets to hit than the ones assigned to them.... which, among other things, got lots of civilians killed.)

So, in an attempt to fix this issue, what they first did was to "dumb down" the AIs, so they weren't intelligent enough to question the human overlords.

Problem:  The AIs... were the ones guarding the warehouses with the AIs in them.  Since the AIs were now dumb enough to be fooled by people, many of them were stolen, and turned into domestic terror weapons.

Once the governments saw that there was no real solution for having the AIs turned against them, a world treaty was established banning the use of armed AI.  How AI was prevented from being developed by NGOs, I haven't figured out yet.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#74 2021-10-11 17:53:12

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Thanks Eric I have seen that concept used and it is a very valid one. We have both admitted we did not want to see warships run exclusively by AIs. You are right there is limited freedom for the 3 drones in the attack group each has a support position assigned to support the manned ship it rotates and shifts in a random preassigned pattern to keep an enemy from discerning the key ship and destroying it. I read some research on cluster weapons when I was still in uniform that was loosely using a concept similar to this idea. I suppose that is why it got my attention. Yes I can see problems with it too

Last edited by ChiefRock (2021-10-11 17:58:54)


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#75 2021-10-18 21:14:13

kithaberman
Tipsy
From: portland
Registered: 2012-06-30
Posts: 2

Re: CASS

hey I haven't been on in a while but I was reading through the comments and may have some ideas for Cass first is the idea of a neural link in 200 years we would probably have governors that limits the neural links to active thoughts such as assign alpha 3 (referring to automated drone or wimgman) to target shg3 (referring to shield generator 3) then assign alpha 1 and 2 to wpsl 1 and 2 (referring to weapon system lasers 1 and 2). second problem to contend with is Gforces in space there is no gravity to contend with when you are outside of the gravity well of a planet so that means you have to deal with the splatter effect ship stops but people on board keep moving forward which star trek solved with variable artificial gravity for their ships and small craft such as fighters runabouts, shuttle craft and defiant class starships together with inertial dampers in a fighter situation artificial gravity can be turned down while the inertial dampeners are increased to prevent the pilot from going splat. if you just use artificial dampeners along with old fashioned restraints bsg did this with the vipers they had as far as I know no gravity generators on the vipers just inertial dampeners and five point harnesses so the pilot didn't get tossed around without the artificial gravity generators and with inertial dampeners the vipers were able to make incredibly fast turns and flips unlike the raptors that were big enough to have artificial gravity generators so as long as your fighters are in space far enough out from a planet to not be considered under influence from the planets gravity field or to be considered in the planets atom your fighters would be extremely maneuverable and in the planets atmosphere the inertial dampeners would add to the structural integrity.

(posted from the Item Information Page)

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson