Your right, and I think where this will end up is with 'super aware' pilots. Where the plane does just about everything automatically, but there's a human inside that basically 'thinks' and the vehicle does. Our brains are already better at strategy than the most advanced computers, it makes sense that the vehicle takes care of the easy stuff (like not hitting walls and landing) and the human focuses on the enemy.
I agree that this will (and should) end up with 'super aware' pilots. There is a lot of work that can be and should be automated so that a pilot only does what is absolutely necessary -- tactical strategy and anticipation of human responses. Computers and their programming can be made mathematically perfect. Flying, evading, tracking, and even self-preservation are perfect for this.
The one thing that a human can do is make real mistakes, anticipate such errors, and make seemingly illogical choices -- illogical to a computer. True deceit. A computer may be able to one day fake deceit, but there will be a logical probability factor to it. Detection of such deceit will likely be more difficult for a computer algorithm than faking deceit.
"Our brains are already better at strategy than the most advanced computers"
--- for how much longer? and when taken at scale, is the human race really all that great at strategy? We are so much at the mercy of emotions to ever be truly great strategists. What if, for example, given food production and water usage etc the math dictated that the population must reduce, do you really think this strategy would be adopted? Of course not.
i don't really see the point of self-flying helicopters, it's not like there's a shortage of bright young men and women who want to fly these things. The real challenge isn't flying helicopters, but finding ways to resolve situations without blowing shit up. As fun as that might be...
"I don't really see the point of self-flying helicopters, it's not like there's a shortage of bright young men and women who want to fly these things."
Fewer caskets arriving at Dover AFB for repatriation.
While that may be an issue at higher political levels (deaths make wars less popular), young people aren't put off by the risk of death, as armies have know for thousands of years. And given the description of the US military as being Americas social welfare system, is this for the greater good, or not?
How about where troops are pinned down in an extremely hot firefight and running low on ammo. The commanders aren't going to risk letting a human piloted black hawk land because it's just too damn risky, but a drone might get the go ahead.
It also makes sense from a purely rational point of view because the major costs of that capability are pilot training (millions) and maintenance. It doesn't hurt nearly as much to lose a chopper when you don't lose those millions spent in pilot training along with it, so you can take much greater risks with it
In most games, the deck is stacked in favor of AI in a variety of ways. (BTW, it's "horde," unless it's a deliberate use of a homophone by the game designers.) If the AI's units can overwhelm humans with superior reaction times or superior numbers, then it's not the AI's strategy that's winning. There are real world situations and games that are still complex enough, it's difficult to compute tactics and strategy properly.
Here's the difference between humans and AI in a nutshell: Competent humans can usually tell when someone is using an exploit against them. AIs almost never have a clue that's happening.
2 good points in there, and as a zombie fan, I'm ashamed of my horde failure. And the comment on exploits is sharp, has AI ever noticed exploits/cheating? How? I know how I start to suspect and start to confirm suspicions, but its not much more than recognition of suspicious patterns.
