Loroi Ship Design

[Zakharra]

Not exactly. A machine can pull higher gee maneuvers than a biological pilot can, but a pilot can use intuition and training to do things no machine could. It is probably very hard to program in random actions into a machine of the complexity of a warmachine and seriously, would you want something as destructive as a machine piloted fighter under the control of an unpredictable computer? Especially if said computer suffers from battle damage?

Intuition is just guesswork and gambling based on incomplete information, which machines are entirely capable of doing, and may well be more likely to do successfully due to not having biologically inborn tendencies to misjudge matters of statistics and physics and being able to judge more of the potential outcomes, particularly since this isn't an environment that the human brain is particularly well suited to. And training makes pilots more predictable...what exactly is it supposed to accomplish to make them capable of things a machine can't do? What, specifically, prevents machines from doing anything a human pilot can do?

And yes, I'd want my machine pilots to be unpredictable. There's little value in launching something that won't reach the target. This doesn't mean totally random, it means exactly what it says...not predictable. It does not mean that they'll suddenly turn around and shoot at the craft that launched them.

Let me get this straight, you're saying that you don't want biological pilots because their training(programming) makes them predictable, yet you want computers, which are programmed, to run the fighters/weapons because they can be unpredictable? That does not make any sense at all. Training can make people predictable, to a degree, but intuition and guesswork can do things no machine can. A highly skilled and trained pilot will fly rings around any computer controlled machine of the same type.

The only thing computers have over biological pilots is computing speed/reflexes and a higher gee tolerance. Humans, and presumably aliens do not think in a linear fashion like completely logical computers do. Our thought process is fairly random and unpredictable for the most part.

[Mjolnir]

Let me get this straight, you're saying that you don't want biological pilots because their training(programming) makes them predictable, yet you want computers, which are programmed, to run the fighters/weapons because they can be unpredictable?

Exactly.

That does not make any sense at all. Training can make people predictable, to a degree, but intuition and guesswork can do things no machine can. A highly skilled and trained pilot will fly rings around any computer controlled machine of the same type.

Exactly wrong. Humans are not good at being unpredictable. Intuition and guesswork can't do anything a computer can't do, and quite probably won't be difficult to beat in an environment like space where all the cognitive shortcuts we've evolved down here on the ground work against us. It doesn't even work very well down here...Las Vegas is a testament to the effectiveness of human intuition.

The only thing computers have over biological pilots is computing speed/reflexes and a higher gee tolerance. Humans, and presumably aliens do not think in a linear fashion like completely logical computers do. Our thought process is fairly random and unpredictable for the most part.

Human-generated "random" numbers are usually odd, and those that end in 5 are chosen less often than they should be.

Humans are terrible at producing randomness. You can't even pick a random digit without preferring some over others, wrongly avoiding repeats and clustering that appear in truly random digits, etc. For true randomness or even just random-seeming results, you need elaborate procedures to filter out the human component...or a machine to generate randomness for you. Machines are also entirely capable of seeking solutions in "nonlinear", stochastic fashion, and more, can evaluate the entire solution space of possible maneuvers rather than only a handful of intuitively-obvious ones weighted by biological limitations that only apply on the ground...humans won't even be able to treat left and right the same as up and down, tend to direct their attention in one particular direction at a time, and will almost certainly develop habits that a machine can identify and exploit, while itself avoiding.

[NOMAD]

Exactly wrong. Humans are not good at being unpredictable. Intuition and guesswork can't do anything a computer can't do, and quite probably won't be difficult to beat in an environment like space where all the cognitive shortcuts we've evolved down here on the ground work against us. It doesn't even work very well down here...Las Vegas is a testament to the effectiveness of human intuition.

The only thing computers have over biological pilots is computing speed/reflexes and a higher gee tolerance. Humans, and presumably aliens do not think in a linear fashion like completely logical computers do. Our thought process is fairly random and unpredictable for the most part.

Human-generated "random" numbers are usually odd, and those that end in 5 are chosen less often than they should be.

Humans are terrible at producing randomness. You can't even pick a random digit without preferring some over others, wrongly avoiding repeats and clustering that appear in truly random digits, etc. For true randomness or even just random-seeming results, you need elaborate procedures to filter out the human component...or a machine to generate randomness for you. Machines are also entirely capable of seeking solutions in "nonlinear", stochastic fashion, and more, can evaluate the entire solution space of possible maneuvers rather than only a handful of intuitively-obvious ones weighted by biological limitations that only apply on the ground...humans won't even be able to treat left and right the same as up and down, tend to direct their attention in one particular direction at a time, and will almost certainly develop habits that a machine can identify and exploit, while itself avoiding.

So, in your opinion, your don;t think humans would ( or are needed) to pilot small fighters craft and that the CPU are best used is missiles, instead of full fighters.

Now, I see the logic in all your points you've been making and (despite not liking the conclusion) could a human/AI hybrid system work; where there is a biological pilot with AI support for the more difficult maneuvers/ combat missions?

[Mjolnir]

So, in your opinion, your don;t think humans would ( or are needed) to pilot small fighters craft and that the CPU are best used is missiles, instead of full fighters.

No. Whether fighters are viable depends mainly on the details of the propulsion and weaponry available and on the location of the conflict. It's almost independent of the pilot. (Almost...lack of a life support system and a pilot that needs to regularly return to a ship with more substantial living quarters means robotic fighters could be viable in a setting where manned fighters aren't.)

Even if there isn't a pilot to bring back, there's the engines, airframe, sensors, etc. Using a multipurpose fighter/bomber/ECM/ELINT craft as a reusable first stage for missiles lets you reduce the size of those missiles and manufacture and carry more of them, as well as having a flexible small craft supplementing sensors and electronic countermeasures, and capable of performing various other tasks, such as delivering small payloads to other ships. Fighters use more fuel, but in some settings (like Outsider), fuel is a relatively small portion of the volume and mass of a vessel, and the cost and size of the engines and other systems might make a reusable craft desirable.

Now, I see the logic in all your points you've been making and (despite not liking the conclusion) could a human/AI hybrid system work; where there is a biological pilot with AI support for the more difficult maneuvers/ combat missions?

That's almost a necessity for things like performing random evasive maneuvers (which will at best become mentally exhausting for the pilot to do manually, and a distraction from more important matters), quickly and safely docking, and simple things like performing minimum time intercepts. Flying any spacecraft is likely to be a matter of telling an autopilot what you want to do. Beyond that, you could also have multiple drones following the lead of a craft with a human pilot.

[icekatze]

hi hi

A big problems that I see space fighters having that planet based fighters don't have is that there is no horizon line to hide behind and no high altitude zone to avoid return fire. If fighters could pull maneuvers that any other warship couldn't, they might get some utility that way, but in space everyone can go any direction and there's usually nothing to hide behind.

Maybe you could tie a bunch of fighters up to tethers and have them spin around randomly altering the tether length to avoid fire without using any propulsion that would aid the enemy in targeting. You could call them tie fighters.

[NOMAD]

@ Mjolnir: thanks for the answers, never though of the simple realties of space flight.

hi hi

Maybe you could tie a bunch of fighters up to tethers and have them spin around randomly altering the tether length to avoid fire without using any propulsion that would aid the enemy in targeting. You could call them tie fighters.

Just tell he that don't have pilot like this

[TrashMan]

Exactly wrong. Humans are not good at being unpredictable. Intuition and guesswork can't do anything a computer can't do, and quite probably won't be difficult to beat in an environment like space where all the cognitive shortcuts we've evolved down here on the ground work against us. It doesn't even work very well down here...Las Vegas is a testament to the effectiveness of human intuition.

So you think a computer would do better in vegas?

Human-generated "random" numbers are usually odd, and those that end in 5 are chosen less often than they should be.

Humans are terrible at producing randomness. You can't even pick a random digit without preferring some over others, wrongly avoiding repeats and clustering that appear in truly random digits, etc. For true randomness or even just random-seeming results, you need elaborate procedures to filter out the human component...or a machine to generate randomness for you. Machines are also entirely capable of seeking solutions in "nonlinear", stochastic fashion, and more, can evaluate the entire solution space of possible maneuvers rather than only a handful of intuitively-obvious ones weighted by biological limitations that only apply on the ground...humans won't even be able to treat left and right the same as up and down, tend to direct their attention in one particular direction at a time, and will almost certainly develop habits that a machine can identify and exploit, while itself avoiding.

But that's just it - every human will have different habbits...which the machine won't know.
I might have a preffernce fro banking left, while bob prefers banking right...what difference does that make to a Drone AI? None. It won't know our habbits.

Not to say that I don't agreee with you that human piltos have no place in space fighter-combat.

[junk]

So you think a computer would do better in vegas?

Yes, which is why no one will allow you to bring one in with you.

[Overkill Engine]

So you think a computer would do better in vegas?

Yes, which is why no one will allow you to bring one in with you.

I haven't exactly kept up on casino policies given that I don't like playing stacked games that can lose me a lot of money in a hurry.....

But this begs me to ask, what about the new generations of "smart phones" that are damn near as much computer as phone? Are these allowed in a Vegas casino?

[Karst45]

But this begs me to ask, what about the new generations of "smart phones" that are damn near as much computer as phone? Are these allowed in a Vegas casino?

I was about to ask the same question.

[Mjolnir]

So you think a computer would do better in vegas? :?:

A bit of statistical analysis shows the most advantageous move for most of the games is not to play, yet many people do play them. A handful of other games are exploitable with techniques easy to replicate in software. Few of the games exhibit the explosive complexity that makes it hard to do things like write a good Go AI. So, yeah, I'd expect a computer programmed to profit from the games to do better.

But that's just it - every human will have different habbits...which the machine won't know.
I might have a preffernce fro banking left, while bob prefers banking right...what difference does that make to a Drone AI? None. It won't know our habbits.

Humans will tend to have some things in common (neglecting to maneuver up and down as much as left or right, or tendency to adhere to a fixed reference plane, for example), and it would not be extremely difficult to take observations of a particular craft's maneuvers and pick out more individual habits.

But this begs me to ask, what about the new generations of "smart phones" that are damn near as much computer as phone? Are these allowed in a Vegas casino?

I doubt they'd get far banning them, but you might get some unwanted attention if you're constantly consulting one.

[bunnyboy]

They weren't allowed with first calculating models, I don't know if the ban is lifted. Probably is, because too many has them now. The cardcounting is too allowed, mostly because the people are trained to notice Counters and it's only needed to suffle the deck to ruin their count.

[TrashMan]

But that's just it - every human will have different habbits...which the machine won't know.
I might have a preffernce fro banking left, while bob prefers banking right...what difference does that make to a Drone AI? None. It won't know our habbits.

Humans will tend to have some things in common (neglecting to maneuver up and down as much as left or right, or tendency to adhere to a fixed reference plane, for example), and it would not be extremely difficult to take observations of a particular craft's maneuvers and pick out more individual habits.

Wouldn't that require the AI drone to be in prolonged combat for it to be able to pick up those "habbits"? And it would have to tie those habbits with a specific craft.
Now in the next sortie, would it be able to recognize that same craft? Or that it's not piloted by the same pilot?

In essence, the AI is predictable in the sense that it's programmed to do X, and if you know, you can take advantage of that.

[Zakharra]

Let me get this straight, you're saying that you don't want biological pilots because their training(programming) makes them predictable, yet you want computers, which are programmed, to run the fighters/weapons because they can be unpredictable?

Exactly.

That does not make any sense at all. Training can make people predictable, to a degree, but intuition and guesswork can do things no machine can. A highly skilled and trained pilot will fly rings around any computer controlled machine of the same type.

Exactly wrong. Humans are not good at being unpredictable. Intuition and guesswork can't do anything a computer can't do, and quite probably won't be difficult to beat in an environment like space where all the cognitive shortcuts we've evolved down here on the ground work against us. It doesn't even work very well down here...Las Vegas is a testament to the effectiveness of human intuition.

The only thing computers have over biological pilots is computing speed/reflexes and a higher gee tolerance. Humans, and presumably aliens do not think in a linear fashion like completely logical computers do. Our thought process is fairly random and unpredictable for the most part.

Human-generated "random" numbers are usually odd, and those that end in 5 are chosen less often than they should be.

Humans are terrible at producing randomness. You can't even pick a random digit without preferring some over others, wrongly avoiding repeats and clustering that appear in truly random digits, etc. For true randomness or even just random-seeming results, you need elaborate procedures to filter out the human component...or a machine to generate randomness for you. Machines are also entirely capable of seeking solutions in "nonlinear", stochastic fashion, and more, can evaluate the entire solution space of possible maneuvers rather than only a handful of intuitively-obvious ones weighted by biological limitations that only apply on the ground...humans won't even be able to treat left and right the same as up and down, tend to direct their attention in one particular direction at a time, and will almost certainly develop habits that a machine can identify and exploit, while itself avoiding.

None of what you're saying makes sense. Computers ONLY respond as their programing allows. They cannot exceed it or go beyond it. Humans, can go beyond and do make irrational and illogical decisions that a computer never could. The only things a computer controlled fighter has over a human piloted one is g tolerance and nearly instant reflexes.

It's true that humans do have preferences, but guess what? So do computers. Where humans excel at though is we can be truly random and no computer can have intuition based guesses like a human can. Why? Because humans do not think logically. We make random decisions and our thought processes are definitely odd. How often have you found yourself getting on a completely different topic that had nothing to do with what you started talking about? And there is emotions too. Those alter how we do things as well. Emotions no computer can ever have.

[bunnyboy]

Computers ONLY respond as their programing allows. They cannot exceed it or go beyond it.

Have you heard about Mark Tilden?

He is the guy why picks up broken electronics and voila! Create a new robot, which have unpredictable behaviours.

He is also mastermind behind robosapiens toys.

[Mjolnir]

Wouldn't that require the AI drone to be in prolonged combat for it to be able to pick up those "habbits"? And it would have to tie those habbits with a specific craft.
Now in the next sortie, would it be able to recognize that same craft? Or that it's not piloted by the same pilot?

It wouldn't require a given drone to be in continuous combat...data from previous encounters from the same pilots could be taken from other drones and from warships. A system of the sort I describe could easily be extended to comparing actions with previously encountered pilots, testing for the sort of consistency that indicates another encounter with the same pilot. Drones could even mimic specific biological pilots to throw off enemy drones...such a behavior might even arise spontaneously, though it'd probably be a preprogrammed tactic.

None of what you're saying makes sense. Computers ONLY respond as their programing allows. They cannot exceed it or go beyond it. Humans, can go beyond and do make irrational and illogical decisions that a computer never could. The only things a computer controlled fighter has over a human piloted one is g tolerance and nearly instant reflexes.

Wrong. Computers can easily be programmed to perform randomized searches for novel solutions, or to come up with approximate solutions based on insufficient data. Computers running genetic algorithms and similar approaches are in fact well known for producing inexplicable, but still functional solutions to a problem. Computers can be programmed to postulate and test theories, they can even be wrong.

It's true that humans do have preferences, but guess what? So do computers. Where humans excel at though is we can be truly random and no computer can have intuition based guesses like a human can. Why? Because humans do not think logically. We make random decisions and our thought processes are definitely odd. How often have you found yourself getting on a completely different topic that had nothing to do with what you started talking about? And there is emotions too. Those alter how we do things as well. Emotions no computer can ever have.

Again, randomness is actually something humans are very bad at, while being trivial to incorporate into machines. This is simple fact, easily tested...you can't even randomly pick heads or tails.

And you still haven't given a single example of how human intuition makes for a superior pilot in this environment, rather than an impediment. Intuition's nothing but estimation and instinct...machines can do estimation, and those instincts were evolved for a completely different environment. And yes, emotions alter our behavior in predictable ways...and a decent machine pilot will probably exploit this, choosing actions to provoke human opponents. One with a good enough model of the opposing pilot might even start doing this spontaneously.

[discord]

well, to be in the middle humans can be truly random(aka bug-eye crazy) but the kind of random you want for evasive movement in space is NOT something humans are good at, for starters rather few humans have good grasp of movement in 3d, proven by games like descent....or well at least indicated.

that's the funny thing about evasive movement in space, it should be non-randomly random, it should take into account known threats and choose a path these have problem with(non-random), but NOT with a simple algorithm so it gets predictable(random) and it should preferably give the evasive target a more advantageous firing solution(again non-random) the combination is rather difficult for humans to do in the fractions of a second it has to make it, machines however CAN make it in the fractions of a second...and despite being pretty predictable be near unstoppable for humans.

it will avoid fire, it will try and get 'behind' and fire upon hostiles, but the path to do so is not certain.

[Mjolnir]

well, to be in the middle humans can be truly random(aka bug-eye crazy) but the kind of random you want for evasive movement in space is NOT something humans are good at, for starters rather few humans have good grasp of movement in 3d, proven by games like descent....or well at least indicated.

A decent example of and attempt to counter this was made in Ender's Game..."the enemy's gate is down". Forcing this orientation sets the preferred plane perpendicular to the enemy, greatly weakening preference for one particular approach. An individual might still have a tendency to go left or right more than up or down, and prefer one direction over the others, but their orientation around the "vertical" axis will be less predictable...they're less likely to act like they and the target are sitting on a planetary surface or flying through a nearly 2D layer of atmosphere.

that's the funny thing about evasive movement in space, it should be non-randomly random, it should take into account known threats and choose a path these have problem with(non-random), but NOT with a simple algorithm so it gets predictable(random) and it should preferably give the evasive target a more advantageous firing solution(again non-random) the combination is rather difficult for humans to do in the fractions of a second it has to make it, machines however CAN make it in the fractions of a second...and despite being pretty predictable be near unstoppable for humans.

The coin toss example illustrates the basic problem. Humans will tend to alternate heads and tails far more than random tosses will give. A human pilot is likely to go right after going left, and after going left and right a couple times is likely to go up or down for a couple times instead, and is likely to keep their forward acceleration relatively constant. You don't need to exactly predict their actions to greatly increase your odds of hitting them.

[discord]

mjolnir: i am mostly on your side here.

the flipside however that is the advantages of humans in that command loop is mostly orders, and interpretation of orders, 'hey that is just crazy, why should i fire on that civilian hospital?' is not something a computer would ask, nor can you just tell a computer what you want, voice recognition and understanding is rather complicated and prone to error.

optimal is probably a hybrid system, some human inside the command loop(CnC fighter thing) controlling a group of pure drones...even if the g-forces involved might make the human somewhat less than perfect at the command part, but you really want a human in the command loop, if for no other reason than to be able to pull the breaks if something fucks up, long range communication is after all prone to jamming.

[Overkill Engine]

Or worse yet, interception of comms and substitution of "less than optimal" orders.

I would hope a human group leader would be harder to "hack" via broadcast comms than an AI group leader would be.