[gurps] Failing autopilots and RVO

[Knapp]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Onno Meyer <Onno.Meyer at gmx.de> wrote:
>> > One other thing about computer software that might come into play is
>> that it
>> > is predictable.
>>
>> The problem with that is it would not be true, if the program were to
>> use the Monti Carlo to solve the problems. Remember that this gets and
>> answer by trying lots of random answers and picking the best bet.
>
> A couple of points on that:
>
> * Hellburner by C.J. Cherryh is a nice science fiction novel which
>  talks about that kind of stuff. Can the AI avionics override the
>  human pilot when he tries 'suicidal' moves, or does that make
>  the starfighter too predictable?

Modern fighter jets do not fly because of a pilot, the pilot suggests
what he wants to the plane and it decides how to do it. Many modern
jets are so unstable that a human can't fly them without the computer
AI. I am of course only talking about low level decisions of flight
mechanics.

> * Random solutions are much harder to test and verify, and vehicle
>  control programs have much higher quality standards than games
>  or even accounting programs. 'That was a crit failure, one in a
>  million' is no good answer when a mechanically sound airliner
>  plows into the ground

Not true, if the random solutions are out of a set of know good
possibles. This is the difference between a Soft and  a Hard Monti
Carlo. By the way, the new go programs to not make bad moves anymore,
they just don't always make the best move.

> * Legal reasons are stopping some real-world automobile robotics,
>  too. There has to be a human driver in charge ...
>
> * Monte Carlo analysis cannot cover all possible actions by the
>  robot, only those which are rewarded by the scoring algorithm.

You have the same limit in a human. If the scoring algorithm is
complex enough to include all the situations then it could. I would
think that any AI that was human equivalent would have to have a
simulation of reality within it just as humans do and that this would
be used to make these evaluations, just as we do. This is of course a
limit to any intelligence. For example you might meet the perfect
partner for you but if they don't fit your idea of perfect (or good
enough) you will not take any action. All life has evolved to score
the outcomes of it's actions and pick what seems to be the best one.
In primitive life forms this evaluation is the result of evolution and
the actions taken are instinct and in higher forms we have better
scoring systems and more flexible options.

>  A human bomber pilot might decide to activate the navigation
>  lights and set the transponder to a civilian frequency. The
>  stochastic algorithm would conclude that lights won't jam a
>  missile and reject this course of action.

I have no idea how you come to believe this to be so. If the pilot can
think of ways to outsmart the enemy why do you think that the
programmers or even the AI would not? It is all a question of AI IQ or
programmed limits and really the humans IQ and ethics (programming). A
human might also just stay with his training, if he is dumb,
inflexible or tired.

-- 
Douglas E Knapp

Why do we live?