• eleitl@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Tracking a moving object in realtime with video is a standard task for a machine learning engineer. You can do it on an embedded platform with ML hardware support. I don’t know what hardware newer Lancets use but they can already do it according from developer reports from Telegram channels like e.g Разработчик БПЛА.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Honestly, I was just objecting to the use of “AI”. We’ve had both fire and forget and loitering munitions for decades now, neither of which use ML. Will it happen? Sure. For now, ML/AI is too unreliable to be trusted in a deployed direct attack platform, and we dont have computing hardware powerful enough to run ML models that we can jam in a missile.

        (Though yeah we run tons of models against drone data feeds, none of those are done onboard…)

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          For now, ML/AI is too unreliable to be trusted in a deployed direct attack platform

          And probably can’t ever be trusted. That “hallucinations can’t ever be ruled out” result is for language models but should probably apply to vision, too. In any case researchers made cars see things and AFAIU they didn’t even have to attack the model they simply confused the radar. Militaries are probably way better at that than anything that’s out in the open, they’ve been doing ECM for ages and of course never tell anyone how any of it works.

          That doesn’t mean that ML can’t be used, though, you can have additional non-ML mission parameters such as the drone only acquiring targets over enemy territory. Or that the AI is merely the gunner, there’s still a human commander.

        • eleitl@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The point of modern deep learning approaches is that they’re extremely easy on the developer skill. Decades ago realtime machine vision needed a machine vision expert, these days you throw the hardware at the problem at learning stage, and embedded devices to run the results are stupidly powerful (doesn’t even take a Jetson board), if you compare to what has been available even a decade ago.

    • d00ery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      A combination of GPS, or even inertial based guidance to get them to the target area and then some simple vehicle / object identification, I’d think those are possible.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          GPS is useful, but not required for operation. Inertial guidance, and ground tracking cameras can easily maintain a good position sense, while completely RF passive. This is also already normal on many toy drones.

          You would also want to jam it over a large area. That jamming is akin to a “kick me” sign, in neon lights.

          • CucumberFetish@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Inertial guidance sucks balls for any meaningful amount of time. Combining it with ground tracking gets it a lot better, if you have good time of flight sensors to measure the distance from the ground. But this also falls flat on its face when the ground is too uniform (grassland, wetland, snow etc).

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Edit, apparently I’m an idiot and my ability to tell truth from fiction is a lot worse than I thought.

      In my defence however, all the parts are completely viable. I also saw it mixed in with Boston dynamics videos.

      I’ll leave the original comment for context of my folly.

      The US already has them.

      There are single shot drones, designed to be deployed into a building, or cave system. They then use cameras etc to navigate, while running face recognition. When they find their target, they fly just in front of it. The shaped C4 charge is designed to reduce their head to red mist, while not risking those close by.

      AI + cheap drones will completely change warfare. Probably on the same level as the tank, or machine gun.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I am, in fact, fairly well versed in the topic. You’re 30+ years away from being able to fit hardware powerful enough to run a ML model into a missle, though I cant see a single reason you’d ever want to. Look into the declassified, 40+ year old design paradigms for missiles or other self-guided munitions and it’ll start to give you an idea of why the idea of “AI” guidance is so laughably stupid. There’s so very many reasons we use FPGAs, none of which are compatible with AI.