
AI fighter pilot wins in combat simulation - tpatke
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36650848
======
linschn
I read the paper, and read up about the techniques used to do that (because
the paper is very light on details). I came back completely underwhelmed.

This makes (clever) use of hundreds, if not thousands, man hours of
painstakingly entering expert rules if the form IF <some input value is above
or below some threshold> THEN <put some output value in the so and so range>.

The mathematical model of Fuzzy Trees is nice, but this is completely ad-hoc
to the specific modelization of the problem, and will fail to generalize to
any other problem space.

This kind of techniques has some nice properties (its "reasonings" are
understandable and thus kind of debuggable and kind of provable, it smoothes
some logic rules that would otherwise naively lead to non smooth control,
etc.) but despite the advances presented here that seem to make the
computation of the model tractable, I don't see how it could make the actual
definition of model anywhere near tractable.

Also, I dislike having to wade though multiple pages of advertising before I
can find the (very light) scientific content.

\-- Edit: I realize I am very negative here. I do not mean to disparage the
work done by the authors. It's just that the way it is presented make it sound
way more impressive than it is. It's still interesting and novative work.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Some rules can be derived from instrumenting humans as they perform the
maneuvers, and generalizing from their behavior? We used to instrument
motorcycle riders at Harley Davidson and create fuzzy-logic models of expert
riders as they performed certain acts on a track (dodging road hazard;
emergency stop; hairpin turn). Our goal was also a fuzzy-logic driver model,
which they used to help design new motorcycle suspensions/steering that would
feel 'natural' to an expert rider e.g. mesh well with the model they had for
an expert.

~~~
nickbauman
Wow that's very innovative for HD. Why don't they put some of that innovation
effort into their actual drivetrain? I loved my Buell's look and ride, but I
mistrusted it's horrid 50-year-old Baker transmission which went on to
completely fail at ~6,000 miles, necessitating me to _disassemble the entire
engine to split the crankcase so I could repair it._ After seeing its guts, I
no longer wanted it. It ignores a half century of innovation in motorcycle
design producing a machine that I vote most likely to unexpectedly leave me on
the side of the road.

~~~
geoelectric
I'll throw out a guess that part of it is the character of the bike being tied
to the drivetrain.

Even outside Buell, which was a bit of a neither-fish-nor-foul anomaly,
they've had the odd innovative model here and there--the V-Rod comes to mind.
And I've seen some interesting things in their ABS systems and some other
components. But I think the most successful models have been very conservative
about their drivetrain as it's part of their signature sound/feel.

My hope is that Polaris' recent critical success with the Indian Scout (which
I bought over HD--far better bang for buck than a Sportster) gives the segment
a kick in the ass.

~~~
nickbauman
The continued anomaly of the Buell is partly the V-Rod's fault. The V-Rod
engine was originally supposed to be for the Buell line to address the issue
until the mothership got interested in it. They added too much weight and too
high a deck height for Buell chassis, so the project was wrestled away from
Buell to make a bike that, in the end, HD couldn't really sell anyway.

~~~
geoelectric
Interesting--I had no idea that the V-Rod engine was originally destined for
Buell. That makes lots of sense.

Buell had some great innovative designs too, but you could tell that was all
Erik and not the motor company. I wasn't surprised when the split happened.

~~~
nickbauman
What many _don 't_ know about the shuttering of Buell is that it happened
while HD was in the process of receiving over a billion in TARP money. This
information was kept secret for over a year. Harley had something like ~6000
employees at the time. Buell operated on ~100. It seemed like a ludicrous
move; like it _had_ to be political.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
For those who read this piece of news and don't understand why there is no
mention of machine learning, neural networks and deep learning, that's because
the system described is a typical fuzzy logic Expert System, a mainstay of
Good, Old-Fashioned AI.

In short, it's a hand-crafted database of rules in a format similar to "IF
Condition THEN Action" coupled to an inference procedure (or a few different
ones).

That sort of thing is called an "expert system" because it's meant to encode
the knowledge of experts. Some machine learning algorithms, particularly
Decision Tree learners, were proposed as a way to automate this process of
elicitation of expert knowledge and the construction of rules from it.

As to the "fuzzy logic" bit, that's a kind of logic where a fact is true or
false by degrees. When a threshold is crossed, a fact becomes true (or false)
or a rule "fires" and the system changes state, ish.

It all may sound a bit hairy but it's actually a pretty natural way of
constructing knowledge-based systems that must implement complex rules. In
fact, any programmer who has ever had to code complex business logic into a
program has created a de facto expert system, even if they didn't call it
that.

For those with a bit of time in their hand, this is a nice intro:

[http://www.inf.fu-
berlin.de/lehre/SS09/KI/folien/merritt.pdf](http://www.inf.fu-
berlin.de/lehre/SS09/KI/folien/merritt.pdf)

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Also, I should say: I'm really sorry this news had to be about an automated
weapon. That sucks.

~~~
Retra
It wouldn't be news if it weren't about a weapon. Or rather, it wouldn't have
grabbed _your_ attention.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
It grabbed my attention because it's an expert system with fuzzy logic rules
and I have an interest in those. I'm not interested in their military
applications.

~~~
Retra
Then why did you bring it up?

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
I analysed the bit I'm interested in and stated I abhor the bit I abhor.

What are you failing to understand?

------
Negative1
AI Fighter Pilots have been killing me in Flight Simulations for at least 30
years now using similar systems. From the paper, they basically use an expert
system using something they call a Genetic Fuzzy Tree (GFT), which seems
suspiciously like a Behavior Tree where the nodes are trained. They trained
the GFT then had it go up against itself where Red team was the 'enhanced' AI
and Blue was supposed to be the human (this part was odd to me).

After they completed the training they put it up against real veteran pilots
and the AI basically did a few things. It would take evasive maneuvers when
fired upon and fire when in optimal range. That's pretty much it. And you know
what? That's really all modern pilots need to do. It's amazing what they did
with Top Gun, making this stuff not look boring. In the end of the day it's
just wait for some computer to tell you that you have target lock and press a
button. If attacked, take evasive maneuvers and pray. Takeoff and landing on a
Carrier is the scariest part.

I'm quite curious how this system would perform in WWII era dogfights where
you had to worry about the stress on your plane, had to deal with engines that
failed and stalled all the time and maneuvers that were much slower and closer
to the enemy (plus no missiles).

Even so, I enjoyed reading the paper (not the article) so would recommend it
if you're into Game AI at all.

~~~
empath75
Seems to me this gets a _lot_ more interesting when they start building
fighter jets without the assumption that a pilot will be in the plane at all.
You can build much smaller, lighter planes without the need for life support
systems or worrying about g-forces that will kill a human pilot.

I'll grant you that doing this in the US is going to be problematic because of
ethical concerns, but there is definitely going to be some country that does
it, and as soon as they do, they'll instantly gain air supremacy.

~~~
niftich
Aren't those called missiles or UAVs?

As in, we should consider why we have planes in the first place: it's to
deliver some payload (bombs, missiles, or in the olden days, cameras for
photography) to a specific place where you make use of that payload and then
go home. Once you remove the human, you're not left with too many uses that
can't be solved with existing technology.

------
vbo
If we assume the wars of the future to be fought by AI-driven warmachines, can
we abstract the matter further and have virtual wars? Our AI versus your AI
fighting on computational resources provided by, erm, Switzerland. Nobody gets
hurt and no money is spent building and destroying warplanes. Everybody wins.
And have a prize pot, so actual invasion of territory is not necessary.
Bulletproof solution, may I say. What do you mean it won't work?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Nobody that loses a virtual war is going to give up and let the other side
take what they want without a very violent fight.

~~~
tomjen3
Assuming the results are pretty accurate about the outcome, why not? You can
either surrender now and not have any civilians killed, or suffer the
following casualties and still lose.

Heck it might even prevent war if the simulation says that both sides will
suffer too high casualties to make it worth it.

~~~
PeterisP
The outcome of such simulations isn't repeatable by definition since it's
path-dependent on various decisions and risky outcomes, and of course even the
information coming out of the simulation affects the decisions and thus
outcomes of future runs of the simulation. That's even with perfect
information, which already is an unrealistic assumption.

At best, a very accurate simulation could tell you "in the case of war, here
is the expected distribution of outcomes, here are the probabilities of
various levels of "winning", here are the estimated levels of civilian
casualties.

And quite a few political leaders in such situations have or would have chosen
to take e.g. a 5% chance of victory instead of surrender, or simply as a
deterring tactic - yes, we know that we will surely lose, but in the process
you'll lose many men as well, so we'll bet that the result is not _that_
important to you and you won't pay this price.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
And there's no telling whether the enemy will do something batshit crazy that
you could have never predicted.

If Herodotus is to believed, a Persian siege against Babylon was met with the
Babylonians strangling all the women except for a few to make bread as to
stretch fighting resources as long as possible.

During the Sono-Soviet border conflict of the late 1960s, Mao threatened to
overwhelm the Russian border with millions of Chinese as a part of his "man
over weapons" strategy. Even with nuclear weapons, the Soviets were terrified
of the sheer number of people that China could throw at them.

How do you predict that? How do you put a number to it?

------
Aardwolf
They did only one simulation? Strange to report on details of one single
simulation when more makes sense.

Why not do hundreds of simulations, with different amounts of attacking and
defending jets. Sounds like fun, must not be a problem to find pilots who want
to do this simulation, it's merely hundreds of hours of gameplay :).

Or was it like, they did hundreds, but this is the only one where the AI won,
and it had 4 planes while the humans had only 2?

------
hackuser
The Pentagon is betting on human-AI teaming, called 'Centaurs'. The
foundational story is this:

Back in the late 1990s, Deep Blue beat the best human chess player, a
demonstration of the power of AI.

Around ten years later, a tournament of individual grandmasters and individual
AIs was won by ... some amateur chess players teamed with AIs.

AIs aren't good at dealing with novel situations, humans are; they complement
each other (and I'll add: unlike most other endeavors, in war the environment
(the enemy) is desperately striving to confuse you and do the unexpected. Your
self-parking car would have more trouble if someone was trying everything they
could think of to stop it, as if their survival was at stake). Also, we
strongly prefer humans make life-and-death decisions; hopefully that turns out
to be realistic.

------
prodmerc
Huh, couple that with an aircraft not bound by human limits (no life support,
much faster maneuvering with no loss in decision making) and it should be
awesome. And terrifying.

~~~
saiya-jin
you mean drone?

~~~
vlehto
Or missile. There is terrific range advantage if you only fly half of the
round trip.

------
tdy721
Was this Raspberry Pi powered? This story makes that claim:
[http://www.newsweek.com/artificial-intelligence-raspberry-
pi...](http://www.newsweek.com/artificial-intelligence-raspberry-pi-pilot-
ai-475291)

If that is true, it puts this achievement in a totally different class.

~~~
Johnny_Brahms
Well, why not? the computers they have in those extreme situations are not the
newest Intel xeons. Battle tested and reliable computers are years behind
their more modern desktop counterparts.

------
sleepybrett
I imagine an AI pilot always has a path to victory since they aren't subject
to red/black-out and can thus pull crazier maneuver than their human
counterparts.

~~~
euyyn
This is a very interesting thought. So much effort goes into the Human Factors
of fighter planes (they started the field after all), that it'd be super
interesting to see what a "fighter drone" looks like.

~~~
bathMarm0t
You've surely seen this?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45)

Very stealthy (no bucket/glass where the pilot has to sit). Huge amounts of
lift available for high G maneuvers. Infinite air-time given a re-supply
tanker is in the area.

------
willangley
The Alpha paper, "Genetic Fuzzy based Artificial Intelligence for Unmanned
Combat Aerial Vehicle Control in Simulated Air Combat Missions" is open access
and available online:

[http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/genetic-fuzzy-based-
artif...](http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/genetic-fuzzy-based-artificial-
intelligence-for-unmanned-combat-aerialvehicle-control-in-simulated-air-
combat-missions-2167-0374-1000144.pdf)

------
sandworm101
What form of combat was this? It sounds as if they were dogfighting, something
that is more myth than reality these days. Fighters fight but they don't
engage on the equal terms, the duel we see in films. What were the BVR
conditions? Was this a missile fight or with cannons?

The concept of two flights approaching each other, seeing each other, and not
engaging until they are in dogfighting range is silly. To get two modern
fighters close enough for a proper turning fight at least one side will have
to be taken by surprise. Otherwise, the long-range missile fight will either
decide the matter or place one side in such a poor position that they will
withdraw. (Either they are down or will have so reduced their energy that a
turning fight isn't an option.)

------
AKifer
In every considerations, an AI pilot has all the advantages in a physical
combat, no G force limit, precise maneuvers, instant reactions, full time
awareness. The only question is, will the rules of war allow an AI to kill a
human ? Or how a human decision can be inserted in the loop.

~~~
neurotech1
If a hypothetical drone pulled 9Gs+ in extreme maneuvers routinely, the USAF
would be buying a new drone pretty quick. Even without weapons load, the
service life would be short as a few years.

This is precisely what happened when the US Navy F-16Ns were used exclusively
by TOPGUN, and had a short service life before the airframe developed cracks
and went to the boneyard. These jets were flown harder than the USAF flew them
in operational service.

Also, the aerodynamic control surface effectiveness on fighter jets does not
allow rapid reversals at some magic level significantly beyond what a human
pilot can handle. An old A-4 Skyhawk can roll beyond 360 degrees a second with
a human pilot.

Another issue is that thrust vectored aircraft like the F-22 Raptor, will
rapidly loose airspeed at a relatively low sustained turn rate. This turn rate
is way less than the 9G maximum of the aircraft. Additionally, An F-22
(91-4003) was effectively written off after a -11G overstress mishap. The
pilot was okay, but the jet never flew again. To fly a fighter in an expanded
G envelope would require additional weight, negating some of the benefits of
unmanned fighters.

~~~
jethro
really you can't design a machine that handles more than 10g's?

the designers are targeting a certain g-limit assumed for the pilots, and then
make the plane as light as possible.

perhaps we will see hybrids in the intermediate term : humans providing
guidance to the unmanned craft (with latency and jammability) and the craft
autonomously doing the low latency fighting. i'm not sure this is "worse" if
all the planes are unmanned. granted any fighting is bad.

this also has big implications for design -- reliability requirements,
disposability change. one way missions.

the comments re: once the virtual fight ends the humans start fighting, i
don't think so. they won't be as good, else the ai version wouldn't be in
service, so that would be pointless.

~~~
neurotech1
The jet still has to carry the weapons, engine, fuel etc. and if it was
designed for 16Gs operationally, the airframe structural strength would add to
the weight significantly, especially if they expected a reasonable service
life.

If the plan was for smaller, miniature, one-way drones, then something like a
ADM-160 MALD or AGM-154 JSOW would suffice, but it wouldn't be a fighter sized
drone.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon)

------
cygnus_a
MAD is the future. And righteousness is the enemy. Don't mess with us. Don't
mess with them.

Also, do the world a favor, and don't innovate new weapons. They leave an
indelible affect on the collective mind.

~~~
sevenless
Problem is the undeniable fact that much innovation comes out of human
conflict. Even our basic laws of thermodynamics come out of experiments in
cannon-boring.

------
matt_wulfeck
> Because a simulated fighter jet produces so much data for interpretation, it
> is not always obvious which manoeuvre is most advantageous or, indeed, at
> what point a weapon should be fired.

This is changing very rapidly with hardware-accelerated RNN chips being
researched by Google and facebook.

I wonder about communication though. All the enemy fighter needs to do is jam
any signals used by the jets to communicate. I wonder if they could rely on
laser/line-of-sight communication instead of RF frequencies.

------
matheweis
They made a movie about this in 2005 (Stealth); looks like it's only taken 10
years for the first half of the plot to unfold.

Now we just need the AI to go rogue and target it's master ;)

~~~
giardini
Sort of like these:

"Dark Star - Bomb Philosophy-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI)

and the conclusion "Dark Star - let there be light"\-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Niv2Xh7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Niv2Xh7w)

------
juandazapata
ONE simulation? This is hardly news. It'd be more interesting if they did
hundreds or thousands of simulation. One data point means nothing
statistically.

------
jjwiseman
I'd like to know how this system compares to TacAir-Soar:
[http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/laird/papers/AIMag99.html](http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/laird/papers/AIMag99.html)

------
infinotize
I've been losing to the AI fighter pilots in DCS:World[0] for years.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator)

------
Aelinsaar
That's interesting, but it had a 2:1 numerical advantage too, which does
matter.

~~~
pmontra
It does matter, but AIs could fly different fighter jets from the ones human
pilots fly with in future. Smaller, more maneuverable, they could have a
sizable technological advantage. If they are comparable today they'll be no
match for fighter jets limited by the presence of human pilots. Ground to air
missiles will become more important for countries with no military AI
capabilities.

~~~
Aelinsaar
That makes sense, given that human pilots can only take so many G's.

~~~
kingmanaz
For an anime depiction of a human pilot reaching the limits of G forces while
attempting to overcome an AI pilot unrestricted by G forces, search youtube
for "yf-21 vs X-9", or, "Guld's Death". I've also posted the link in a comment
above.

------
pc2g4d
Fighter jets feel like something that could be effectively tackled using
genetic algorithms. Algorithms that get shot down are weeded out. Algorithms
that shoot down enemies are promoted. Yeah?

~~~
imaginenore
Yes, but only if your simulations are very close to the real world. Usually
that means they are very slow.

I feel like swarms of cheap, fast, unmanned aircraft that communicate
efficiently and orchestrate their behavior with AI will prevail in the end.

------
SocksCanClose
For many years John Boyd and the "Fighter Mafia" helped to plan, build, test,
and then manufacture fighters that had optimal "performance envelopes" that
enabled them to maintain dominance in the sky. Perhaps this concept means that
the new "performance envelope" is going to be one of software. This argument
is fleshed out here: [http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/imagine-the-starling-
peak-f...](http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/imagine-the-starling-peak-fighter-
the-swarm-and-the-future-of-air-combat/)

------
gldalmaso
I imagine in real life conditions adversaries would focus on sensory attack
types then?

Are there sensors that are immune to scrambling and bad data?

~~~
CydeWeys
There aren't, but this applies to human sensors as well. The only human sensor
that's any use in a dogfight is optical, and you can make optical sensors that
perform a lot better than the human eye in regards to magnification, etc.

------
ourmandave
My first thought was of that little bastard UFO in _Asteroids_. It's pew-pew
gun would never miss me.

------
dmvaldman
I find myself imagining a world where the weapons trade is replaced with
bootlegged AI software trade.

------
ADanFromCanada
News at 11. One robot pilot beats another robot pilot.

"The AI, known as Alpha, used four virtual jets to successfully defend a
coastline against two attacking aircraft - and did not suffer any losses."

"Alpha, which was developed by a US team, also triumphed in simulation against
a retired human fighter pilot."

Key words here are "also" and "simulation" and "retired".

Click bait much?

------
kingmanaz
In the clip below, one of mankind's last manned aircraft pilots--flying his
fighter with a mind interface--attempts to destroy his AI-controlled fighter
replacement:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hJepWBUqZk#t=0m20s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hJepWBUqZk#t=0m20s)

Perhaps honor can't be programmed.

------
fedxc
Why is this news? I lose to AI games all the time...

------
0xdeadbeefbabe
Does it go without saying that actually running a simulation is super easy? At
times I feel locked in by my operating system, so I wonder how these guys did
it.

------
partycoder
Can be deadly, but if it's predictable it can be controlled. For example, a
gator. A gator is deadly, but can be manipulated because of its
predictability.

------
ratsimihah
Ender's Game!

------
jameshart
AIs beat humans in simulated combat continually. It's called 'losing a life in
a video game'.

