Re:What future space combat would really look like
by zeteo on Tuesday December 27, 2011 @06:24PM
(#3397883)
The point is that the 10-20 seconds latency that was mentioned is not even close to covering the next planet, much less the entire solar system. Yes, you can send off a bunch of heat-seeking missiles, but, as I mentioned in my original post way up this thread, these missiles are routinely defeated by counter-measures even when seconds away from the target. So, in the absence of strong AI, it's vastly more efficient to actually have a few humans on board the ships.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:What future space combat would really look like
by tuppy on Wednesday December 28, 2011 @02:16AM
(#3398977)
How does a human-operated ship mitigate anti-missile counter-measures better than an AI operated ship, assuming the same munitions? You have yet to give a single concrete example. If anything, a human-operated vessel would have a worse reaction time than a machine-operated vessel (or AI-operated if you want to be romantic). This is simply due to the physics of operating a biological construct to mechanically manipulate things instead of an electronic construct to manipulate much smaller things on a much smaller level.
And to sum up, you've used these as synonyms in the argument:
strong AI
general-purpose AI
human-like AI
These are completely different things. What, exactly, are you referring to?
Re:What future space combat would really look like
by nl on Tuesday December 27, 2011 @11:51PM
(#3398657)
So, in the absence of strong AI, it's vastly more efficient to actually have a few humans on board the ships.
Have you done the math on that? Humans (and more importantly their life-support systems) are hugely, hugely expensive in terms of the carrying capacity of a space ship.