News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AI slays top F-16 pilot in DARPA dogfight simulation by godelski on Friday August 21, 2020 @09:43PM (#24240873)
> to make an exploitable attack you would need at a minimum to have a copy of the flight AI and be able to simulate possible encounters.

I'd disagree. Data is more important than the model. But also you can do black box attacks on AI pretty effectively. What you do is train your AI to perform a similar feat and then figure out its weaknesses. Those weaknesses are likely to translate to the other AI. Robustness is a difficult task.

As for blasting confusing data, well that already happens to human pilots. There are radar jammers, targeting jammers, visually occluding devices, etc. But hey, if an AI can operate under 90% of typical dog fight situations, then that's a big reduction in needed pilots. Then those pilots can be all trained to be aces.

Re:AI slays top F-16 pilot in DARPA dogfight simulation by johbjo on Sunday August 23, 2020 @07:04AM (#24251078)
If weaknesses can be known in advance, then they can "just" be incorporated into the training environment. Unless you can feed the sensors "false" data, there aren't necessarily that many possible exploits.
Re:AI slays top F-16 pilot in DARPA dogfight simulation by godelski on Sunday August 23, 2020 @01:15PM (#24253431)
You should read up more on adversarial machine learning. If you could solve things so simply you'd get a lot of papers really quick (and lots of money).