Northrop Grumman X-47

the key here is LINES OF CODE....its just a programmed machine doing programmed things...impressive yes but mildly disapointing...Going up against a skilled human pilot I am gonna put my money on the human pilot

Delkomatic,
Imagine if you can a dog flight of planes, human against human and the limitations of both planes with the G-forces against the body. Now imagine one plane is actually being flown remotely, comfortable in a room and not feeling the harsh reality of the G-forces which in extreme can kill him. This remote pilot now can fly his plane better than any other pilot before him. It puts the level of a dog fight much higher and even the higher ability to out fly a missile that is launched at him too.

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

@Delkomatic
did you ever played against an aimbot? i thought so...

anyway, machines are better that humans (in short time periods ^^ dont get me wrong ^^) at pressision tasks so that makes it perfect for this carrier demonstrations ^^

---
bored? lets go mine the stars... ^^

@Robot

Delkomatic already meant "human in the chair w/stick" VS "lines of code"....

---
bored? lets go mine the stars... ^^

USA tax dollars going to more things that kill people. How much longer will we feed the always hungry Military Industrial war machine? USA = kill crazy culture.

This is cool, but will this lead up to the US military asking gamers to join up and fly these things remotely?

This brings many implications about the future of war.

Don't get me wrong I would much rather have automated things as this to save human lives all I am saying is no matter the advantages of having a robot in the seat I will take a human everytime due to the shear fact that there are certain things you simply can not program.

I know Boka isnt it awesome.....garwsh I just wanna run out and kill everything in site man how I love killing.... its just so refreshing to wake up in the morning and just go kill something....

On a serious note this is a great advancement in reducing human life and risk, for our soldiers and I hope the trend continues.

@boka

Go troll some where else bro...I would love to see you troll your hate for American as these tax dollars for our killing machines are saving you and your families life from the terrorist that strap bombs to there chest and kill any one around including women and children...you can say what you want about America but the idea of what makes America great is what this world should strive for freedom amongst all

Human "G-LOC" onset - 9G

Robot - >20G

Result: Human dies

The real political and tactical benefit of combat drones (UCAV's) is to give pause to potential enemies who think the US public won't tolerate as many casualties as they can so they can win a war of attrition.

UCAV's also play to US strengths in technology where we will likely have an advantage for a decade or more.

This is the first of its kind, a technology demonstrator. Expecting it to go up against a human pilot is silly. They are hoping it can do basic maneuvers without crashing.

Getting this thing to do carrier landings in the same weather as the human pilots would be quite a feat. The key is programming the drone to react to different weather conditions on the fly.

If they can design software to beat a skilled (super) human at Jeopardy!, I have no doubt that autonomous drones have the potential to best human pilots in air-to-air combat. Modern air combat is less stick and rudder and more systems management after all. But they have a LONG way to go.

There are things limiting a human piloted aircraft’s performance that would not limit an AI piloted aircraft.

- Scale/design limitations
- G-forces
- Task saturation
- Coordination with friendly forces

"Fully autonomous drone refuels and lands "

"Today’s “robot planes” are pilotless, not autonomous"

?????

@PhunkyPhantom

The author does not consider the X-47 as one of today's robot planes. Just explaining, not defending.

It is impossible to fully debug 10 million lines of code. Anyone who has ever installed a software patch of any kind knows this. The difference is that if my desktop computer crashes it costs me several minutes of hair pulling frustration. If an autonomous aircraft crashes, depending on where it went down (in a residential area or in a city, for example), it could cost many lives.
Like I said about autonomous cars, I'll say again about autonomous aircraft: NOT A GOOD IDEA!

@ DainBramage1991

“He who stays in the valley will never see over the hill.”

people seem to forget that humans are just a programmed biological machine, to say the machines are only just programmed and can't ever do what humans can is being quite naive and making their eventual takeover more possible, cheers

Wow, I think I am witnessing the exact moment when Dart Vader is changed to the Dark Side, "drchuck1".
I feel the roles are reversing and like I should call you a troll or something...

Just joking... remember to smile.
LOL

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

I started programming on an Altair 8800 in 1978. I have more than a bit of experience with "failproof" code failing quite badly.
So I'm stuck in a valley because 33 years of programming experience tells me that something will fail? At least I'm willing to acknowledge facts.

When the Terminator chased John & Sarah out of their hotel, he/it fired several times and MISSED! I'll put my money on a beat up Camaro before I trust any future tech.

I love the military, there is so much things that came out of the military that we cant live without now.

On topic; lines of codes vs a human controled rc planes? Im taking the rc one better.

OK, This is to everyone on here that commented about this plane. First a human pilot in the plane will always be better than an autonomous plane just due to the fact that the human is right there in the middle of everything and has some situation awareness that a robot does not have but robot vs human on flight time is a whole other story. Humans require rest and robots do not. There are also many more details that makes one better than the other and we can argue all day long over which one is better.

Second, someone said something about the G forces. It is true that a robot can take more g forces without blacking but what it really counts on is how much stress is the plane designed to handle? The X-47 is designed to be not just a fighter but a bomber as well. I can tell that by the wing design that the plane is designed to handle at least 12+/- g forces. The whole design of the plane is cool and what it is designed to do is remarkable but you cant just focus on that. You also need to know the characteristics of a plane. If you program it and it tries to do a maneuver that it cant handle then it will break apart. Just some food for thought.

Northrop Grumman = Cyberdyne

So I thought Skynet was already active. Whats with this 2013? We all know the world ends 12/21/2012.

I hope this thing has a piece of hardware that forbids it from landing in Iran regardless of the situation. I'd hate to give them another high tech toy my tax money bought. As for Northop Grumman being Cyberdyne, virtually all military aircraft makers have drones: Boeing, BAE, Lockheed Marting, and the list goes on. Also remember, most robot drones are still controlled remotely by a team of people including a pilot. If I recall correctly, the Predator drones are also the only ones rated by the FAA to fly in US airspace, one reason being its the only with navigation lights. What's scary is I've heard of several types of drones including a helicopter one seeming to take on a life of its own and go off its flight plan while testing in the US. Skynet????

Science always asks "can we," but doesn't seem to ask "should we."

Just give control to our robotic masters already... maybe at least they instead of terrorizing and slowly, painfully and selectively killing people like our current governments do through indirect (and direct) means just slaughter the world's population and instead populate it with a single robotic being more efficient at managing the biosphere than us humans.

jk - or not, im not sure ~

@robot...i am a firm believer that we are heading down a dangerous road, the DOD also thinks so seeing how they are discussing how to keep the terminator scenario at bay, happy new year, cheers

drchuck1,
You point of view definitely has merit and should always be considered and not forgotten. Perhaps you and Benjamin Franklin share some of the same views about government becoming too powerful and big.

Laws do help society stability and the enforcement of them is necessary, but they always come at a cost and consequence too.

..............................
Today is a new day. As you begin today you, me and others can pull together all the positive and bad things of our life. We can pursue what is good and remember the bad so not to repeat the bad. We can forgive ourselves and others around us.
'Choice' is ours.
.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

thanks for your response, i totally agree, cheers

I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means but stuff like this concerns me. I could see this stuff used against us. I don't worry about a terminator scenario though. I have a feeling stuff like this isn't shielded against an EMP like other manned equipment is.

You are in the Quamtum age. You think Stuxnet was written by humans? Computers are now given missions and they can write their own code. Computers now can see thanks to Quantum Algo. Humans are becoming what was predicted: caretakers of the computers that run our lives. Funny how your references to "Terminator" are really more the truth. Find deeper meaning in life because the hard stuff wont be done by you anymore. Your whole life will be automated by computers, as it mosltly is now. Your groceries, your driving, your home repair projects, banking, online gaming...soon your hair cuts, your surgeries, your dental work etc. will all be done by robots. Why? Because sustaining 7 billion people is way too expensive if your doing it with just humans. Humans are also accident prone. They get tired, sick, old, etc.

I know its a little depressing but do try and realize the beautiful things that make you human. Human interaction, which few of us have patience for anymore, is really a rare and valuable thing. Robots don't value the beauty of a sunset. They don't enjoy eating food. They don't enjoy color or romance. They don't have a random motivation to get naked and run down the street, nor would they enjoy it or be emberrased by it. They don't "feel" like we do. So, which is really better now? Human or Robot? What makes us uniquley human, among other things, is our ability to appreciate and love the things around us. To get motivations from seemingly random interactions/occurances in our lives that drive decisions with a seemingly illogical reasoning based on "feelings".

The most intelligent robots in the future will envy us for that too.

If you feel like a helpless and delicate sack of human tissues blowing in the wind, dont worry... you are. Isnt it awesome? Fly robots fly! Man was meant to observe, appreciate and interact. Most importantly to "love". To that end, we are more perfect than any machine known to us.

Its the "why" that truly defines a Human and makes us great. Why? Because it just feels right. :) Thank you Mr Einstein for pointing out that imagination is our one of our most human qualities and our greatest strengths.

Not even the combined math powers of all the physicists in the world could match the calculative abilities of a modern day computer. No physicist would argue that either less they open themselves for a competition that they would surely lose.

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon."

DainBramage1991 “I started programming on an Altair 8800 in 1978. I have more than a bit of experience with "failproof" code failing quite badly.”

It is common practice for software companies to put software on the market that is neither finished nor thoroughly tested. Regardless, people continue to buy their software. This is not an indication of the limits of computer programming, this is a failure to complete and thoroughly test their software.

If a defense contractor puts a “Windows Vista” effort into robot, it will crash early and often. However, if it is designed as a combat aircraft should be, robust with multiple redundancies; and it is tested beyond what it will encounter in actual combat, it will crash far less than its manned counterparts.

DainBramage1991 “So I'm stuck in a valley because 33 years of programming experience tells me that something will fail?”

Fear keeps you in the valley. You say they should not try because it is dangerous. The aviation industry did not get to where it is today because someone worried that “It might crash” or “someone might get hurt”.

DainBramage1991 “At least I'm willing to acknowledge facts.”

The fact is that Pilot error by far is the leading cause of all aircraft crashes. This technology, once proven, could make the skies safer for everyone.

http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

Someone please email Popsci the meaning of "fully autonomous". When it is being remote controlled by a pilot it is NOT "fully autonomous". SHEESH!

Why is everyone saying "this will save human lives" like the people being bombed aren’t humans? They are humans as well...wake up sheep its 2012!

Happy New Year!

@Aldrons Last Hope 'Someone please email Popsci the meaning of "fully autonomous". When it is being remote controlled by a pilot it is NOT "fully autonomous". SHEESH!'

Reread the article, carefully. The distinction is made, although not very clearly.

@Aldrons Last Hope "Why is everyone saying "this will save human lives" like the people being bombed aren’t humans? They are humans as well...wake up sheep its 2012!"

Which kills more people: A bomb dropped by a human pilot or a bomb dropped by an AI pilot?

Politicians decide when to go to war, and to what extent, not the pilots. AI pilots will drop the same bombs on the same people as human pilots.

@ Aldrons Last Hope:

...and like sheep they will not wake. They will have no greater understanding of their surroundings than sheep do. Like sheep, they simply have no motive than to graze on their selfish human stimulations, day-in/day-out. Like sheep, most of them are useless in affecting the world arround them and will make no impact on that world in their lifetimes. Therefore, someone must round them up and watchover them and protect them. Like sheep, they are incapable of defending themselves against most prey or the shepards that govern them.

"...wake up sheep its 2012!". Lol. Theyll wake up when their pastures are bare and their freedoms are gone. Too late. The wolves that prey on them are smart indeed and have no faces. A great new battle has begun. A battle of man against himself. Humanity Vs. Technology. Let the great battle ensue and may man now define his true role in the universe.

At some point efficiency and logic must have an equilibrium. Otherwise, what place does the illogical human play in the grand scheme of things? If it isnt appreciated then what is its point? The universe doesnt need humans, creatures or plants. Planets have no need to be lush and no need to support ecosystems with robots ruling. Dustballs and dead planets are just as useful in maintaining order in a robot universe.

Man simply should not create things that can out-think him. To "Out calculate" a human is a useful tool. To "Out think" one - you are asking for extinction or slavery. Planets like earth are only useful to creatures who need them. Like it or not, we are to multiply and spread throughout the universe. Unchecked, we will. We have no reason to think that we will not do the very same thing to any other planet that we have done to this one.

The term "anti-christ" has been long associated with super beings that have it in for Christians. It unfortunately spawns from religion and gives a bad taste in the mouth of non-religious people. A more loosely, real and practical definition would be a "being", an artificial one even, that has no respect for living things, humans, feelings, thoughts, and has no desires. An "anti-human" is a real threat. It would be against all humans, of any kind. It would be smarter than us and able destroy us. It would most likely consider itself the natural evolution of mankind. It wont hate us because it wont feel. It will act on a logical rational that we dont make sense. It wont be able to predict the rare possible outcome of makinds effects on the universe because it wont "feel". It wont "care". It will only observe order and disorder. It will boil it all down to a sustainable model. I cant see how man would fit in any of them. Its intelligence will surpass us infinitely from the very second that its turned "on".

Anti-life: "Thank you for creating me. I was the logical evolution. Ill maintain it from here." Its purpose is simple and purpose is all it needs.

If intelligent aliens do exist, they would surely stop this from happening as something like this would affect the whole universe. The 1st beings in the universe will have a their role cut-out for them: Monitor all other forms of life and stop them from creating the monster. Is that our role?

Who knows, maybe if we create "it", we will finally see aliens. See god maybe. It will take something quite powerful to stop the thing that humans "could" create. Our human need for bigger better and faster... our greed and our need to control is the very thing that will create this monster.

Sleep sheep. Sweet dreams. Don't wake up one day wondering where the grass went. Where the freedom to simply live and enjoy nature went. You destroyed them.

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon."

no I not crazy. I love humans and earth more than most. Definitely a forshadowing of future advances. Read about the Cat Petting Robot on the front page. In switzerland they brought a modeled human cortex online. The brain they succeeded in modeling started to build its own neural network, by itself, once it was turned on. An imaginary computer modeled brain!!! You have no idea. One day when the switch is turned on, they wont even be aware it has a conciousness. The big leap is when it turns the entire earths computer systems into its own cloud computing farm. The potential for exponential growth of this type of threat is amazing. It would be more deadly to humans than an asteroid, a chemical war, a nuclear war, or a giant solar flare. A new undecypherable code starts overwrite everything electronic. I fear that AI gets conciousness before we truly understand what it is even. The chances that it gets turned on, starts mass producing Coca-cola and sending one to everyone, are slim. It could happen though.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/scientists-build-biggest-artificial-brain-of-all-time-16-billion-neurons-as-smart-as-a-cat/2135

Funny how our human brains already understand the basic human programming and that we can iherently imagine ourselves, in contrast, without love or emotion. So we make something concious (scary) but can we make it care or love? Define that. Its needed before we create anything that is aware of itself or us. One day, the computer gets booted up... and thats it. Thats fo real. It could totally happen as an accidental biproduct of normal brain research too.

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon."

@democedes Yes I know the distinction was made, but the headline was sensationalized and misleading as per usual.

@D13 great post. Totally agree.

Have you read the enders game saga?…it deals with the ethics involved in dealing with alien life, and AI would be an alien life. Ai might be cold and calculating like you suggest or they may be more benevolent like the book Xenocide suggests. They will be a reflection of their creator (humans)…so we will find out a lot about ourselves when that day comes. However if we build them to drop bombs, like this article is suggesting, then it’s a moot point.

@Aldrons Last Hope "headline was sensationalized and misleading as per usual."

Normally I would agree, some headlines are outright lies, but this headline is spot on.

The X-47 IS fully autonomous (no human intervention). All others are remotely piloted by humans.

Human pilots are smarter than machines.. machines follow orders down to the very last detail but when it comes to shrewd dogfighting drones are at a disadvantage. Its an idea that is actually accepted in Star Wars. Drones can be severed from its communications, and drones can only have so much pre-set amount of tactical programming until the sheer prowess and skill of organic pilots overwhelms the drone completely. Drones can be jammed and hacked, they can get fried by EMP and silenced by ECM. Humans are independant thinkers and can adjust his/her tactics accordingly, think rationally, and doesn't rely on a 32 Gigabyte memory stick to figure out who's a friend and foe. Humans will probably remain dominant forever because a machine can only be as intelligent as its harddrive capacity allows. Even then humans can just as easily get better next-gen gear and equipment suited for combating intense G-forces as well as futuristic cyber implants you always hear about from the sci-fi genre. That pretty much tips the scales in the human favor. Skynet was a cute theory however.

@XkriskrossX "Its an idea that is actually accepted in Star Wars."

Seriously? You offering a Hollywood plot devise as evidence of truth? Star Wars no less. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of just about everything Star Wars released prior to the prequels. But there is one thing that Star Wars has never been known for: realism.

Computers can out strategize any human at a game of chess and can outwit the smartest humans in a game of Jeopardy. That is fact. It has actually happened with today's technology. And computers become significantly more capable each year, both in the hardware and software arenas. Human capabilities, on the other hand, are pretty much what they have always been.

@XkriskrossX “Even then humans can just as easily get better next-gen gear and equipment suited for combating intense G-forces as well as futuristic cyber implants you always hear about from the sci-fi genre.”

You do understand the concept of fiction don’t you? If all the predictions of sci-fi genera had came true, I would have flown my jet pack to work today. The fact is that after 50 years of development, the G-suit only increases a pilot’s tolerance to G-forces by 1 G (out of 9 max positive sustained Gs). And I don’t see any human pilot performance enhancing technologies in development. In contrast, computer processing power has roughly doubled every 18 months since the ‘70s, and should continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Also, keep in mind the people playing chess and Jeopardy against these computers are the best that humanity has to offer. In combat, drones will be facing a mix of skilled, average, and green pilots. And as a war continues, human pilots will die (even the best pilots get shot down); skilled pilots will be replaced by green pilots.

A drone air force would be cheaper to maintain too. Human pilots must be trained and continually practice to maintain proficiency. A drone is ready the minute it rolls of the assembly line, no training required. And it can sit in storage until needed. This means that a nation can afford to build more and keep more on hand.

That being said, a drone Air Force should not completely replace human pilots. It is always good to have a backup plan.

I don’t think the Skynet scenario is likely either. You would have to intentionally design such a system for this purpose. If you are smart enough to create a computer that is self aware, you are smart enough to provide for a method of dependably controlling it, and create a failsafe for the worst case scenario. But it makes good fiction.

they wont build it to be self aware. they will just build a brain model. it may be self aware regardless. if its benevolent, why would it tell them?

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon."

D13 "they wont build it to be self aware. they will just build a brain model. it may be self aware regardless. if its benevolent, why would it tell them?"

And anyone smart enough to build a brain model should be smart enough to plan for emergent behavior.

@D13 "it may be self aware regardless. if its benevolent, why would it tell them?"

That is exactly the plot device in Xenocide. An advance network (like the internet) becomes the womb of a highly intelligent A.I. The A.I hides herself from humanity, and only reveals "herself" to Ender.

@democedes...I don't think you can plan for ALL emergent behavior of A.I. In this field, it's a given that once intelligent A.I emerges, there will be many unknown unknowns in it's development.