MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia
| The house and barn example is valid because just that condition may occur.
But it is suggested to exemplify a point only.
Point being is the computer cannont be taught to make such considerations to the degree a human can.
And "as much as possible" says it all, it is only possible to a limited degree by comparison to the human ability to make like judgements.
The point is not simply to recognise a house and a barn or differentiate between them, like I say I beleived you missed the point of why I gave that example.
The point is not to differentiate between the barn and the house, but to be aware of which object out of all objects it may ever encounter, is the one that is more or less likely to be inhabited by humans.
Computers generate the best case scenario from a simple list without any emotional considerations to factor in the humans
Humans do not work in such a simple arbitury look_up_tables fashion.
They apply imaginations and assumption, that a computer cant apply to the simple multiple choice it is given.
It can have a determined weighting of relevance to a decision at best but that is not an assumption or an imagined outcome.
It is pre programmed and cant extend itself to use it individual human character to go beyond its simple set of instructions.
What is the problem you ask.
Humans is the problem Mike, lets not be coy now.
| Quote |
| How do you think the Tomahawk cruise missiles work
|
It uses an image of the terrain that was taken before hand to allow the computer to make recognitions on a number of weighted points to see if the image is close enough to the same as what it has already seen before..
It enough points are satisfied then it is to the computer, at the right place.
A tomahawk missile goes to a place it has seen before.
My question to you was
How will you get a computer to recognise the ground it has never passed over before ?
| Quote |
| UAVs are still in their infancy. R&D systems have been around for years but the military has only recently been using them in the field.
|
That is plain wrong Mike
The Jindivik UAV was pre 1970.
They used them for military purposes from day 1.
They tried for many years to think of other ways to use the UAV technology the created for the Jindivik both militarily and civily prior to the 80's and all ways failed for the very reasons I am giving you here now.
| Quote |
| The same applies to the commercial arena - we're among the first to get them into the commercial markets.
|
That is simply not true, you need to check your UAV history and you will see there were many created, most failed bar the ones that where created from need to have them befroe they where created.
The very thing that made the Jindivik UAV the big success and the longest serving UAV in history.
All those created for the mere proof of concept that did not have a pre determined need all failed to be used viably.
The Jindivik Hovercraft worked perfectly like the UAV, but it was of no use to anyone so it was scrapped.
You may have heard of the Jindivik UAV but you have not heard of the Jindivik hovercraft.
To convince yourself you are the the leading edge of the history of UAV is fooling yourself at best.
I spoke to my retired father a short time ago, he was a senior engineeer throught the Jindivik program
I told him what you wrote about this being some kind of new begining for UAV.
He laughed loud and long Mike.
He said "ok, if they dont want to learn a lesson from all the work we did in the past, let them have their fun and waste their govt grant."
| Quote |
| The fear will decrease as the technology gets better
|
The technology has been getting better since 1970 mike
That is 34 years ago, but in the last 34 years that has not helped to shut up the doom sayers who point to the sky.
How is it that this will all change now.
And on your final point about cars killing people
And blacksmiths mention of doctors killing pateints.
No comparison.
Society needs cars and doctors, the deaths are offest by the need for cars and doctors to the point the public accepts a degree injury or death for the benefits to the nation of cars and doctors.
No-body in the public need UAV like they need cars or doctors, as they dont need it they will weight up the risks of having it to the benefits and they will as they have done for the last 30 years, which is they don't need it enough to warrant the risk of having it.
After the death of the a vicar by the MoD Jindivik UAV in peace time a few decades ago, nothing was ever a sure thing for UAV from that date forward in regard to civil operations.
It is a ghost that has haunted UAV to this day, you seem to ignore it this and dont seem to identify enough with it as a real and critical issue.
Others have made the same error of judgement about the general public.
The most traggic part of it is that the public doesnt tell you at anytime they dont want UAV flying overhead.
Many industries avoid using UAV considering the human and public factor, it wont be you manufacturers who get the flack from the public, it will be the industries that use them and they know it, all you get in that is a wall of silence to ponder why no-one is using them in a host of operations that are offered as UAV potential uses.
Aerosonde and Aussie UAV manufacturer for some years now has for all appearances realised there is limited application for UAV, most of those military and so I see they are hanging theire coat on military contracts. Talk of civil applications has all but evaporated.
Maybe it is time you too limited your proposed uses of UAV to ones that do not threaten the on going future of UAV uses that are worthwhile persuing.
For one thing showing the general public proposals that should be limited to military eyes only like shooting paints balls is most certainly shooting yourself in the foot and making peoples pre conceived fears simply esclate..
For your own good I sure hope you dont go and do that again.
That was bad judgment IMV.
But thats your choice, you have the future in UAV to deal with, I don't
I only have the history of the UAV that has been done already to tell you about.
Ignore it if you wish Mike.
Most other recent UAV developers all ignore the history so youre not alone.
I dont see you have a solution for the human factor.
I think you wish to ignore its existance and in that I fear you are doomed to the same failures of others by the same reasons.
Even if you are the most skilled and competent avionics engineer like my old dad.
There is much to be learnt from UAV history.
Dont reinvent the wheel
AND
Nessecity is the mother of invention
Proof of concept alone does not create a need where none existed before. Those inventions sell on late night TV, you get two for the price of one, and free steak knives..
I feel you have a view of the UAV future that is blinkered by your own over exitment at the technology itself and prepared to ignore all factors that are not attractive to the model you propose, and are unlikely to accept what Ive put to you. But it needed to be said.
I support UAV, wait till you meet someone who doesnt.
Good luck is the only other advice I can offer you if you wont accept the above advice. |
It was a good discussion with valid points being made on both sides, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
