• Davidjjdj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Hopefully not the same elementary AI and cameras as the Tesla’s. The missiles would be aiming for barricades on the highway

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    282
    ·
    8 days ago

    Guy whose cars run into stopped fire trucks thinks he’s an expert on computer vision.

    • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Speaking of fire trucks has anyone here ever read the emergency response procedures for teslas in severe accidents? When I was a volunteer we gave it a look over.

      If I remember right, Depending on the model they recommend up to 8,000 gallons (~30k liters) to keep an overheating battery’s temp stable in case of fire or exposure to high heat. I’ll link the resource page here.

      Our engine holds 700 gallons (5.2k liters) and the typical tanker in our area holds 2,000 (7.5k liters)

      That’s a house fire level response for a single electric vehicle. Just getting that much water moved to a scene would be challenging. We have tankers, but how many city departments can move that much water? You don’t see hydrants on highways. And foam is not effective like it is for normal car fires. The future will be interesting for firefighters.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 days ago

      It is especially important to understand that Tesla’s struggles with navigation are entirely a result of Elon refusing to equip them with LiDAR. This isn’t some “The tech is really new and really complicated and we’re still figuring it out” problem. There is a very good solution to most collision avoidance scenarios, but Elon refuses to let them use it because he’s an idiot.

  • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    164
    ·
    8 days ago

    For those doing the maths at home:

    An F35 who obligingly flies top-towards-you (not exactly something you can do, but hey, maybe they’re turning) is all of 10m tall.

    An AIM-120C can very comfortably hit a target at 100km.

    At that range, the F-35 takes up 26 arcseconds, or 0.007 degrees. That’s roughly about the size of this period, at a distance of 3 meters away.

    [ . ]

    Good luck spotting that in a sky of roughly the same colour, full of other objects.

    • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      8 days ago

      You can place cameras anywhere, they don’t need to be right next to what is being targeted. Nearer ranges will allow AI to misidentify at much higher rates than max standoff ranges of an AIM-120C.

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      8 days ago

      Pffffffff

      I can see that bright white dot against the dark mode background on my maximum brightness screen with ease! Therefore your argument is invalid!

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yeah but what about the AI? Have you thought about the AI that would be running it, which never misses, and would totally be a useful existing thing? 😉

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Just for reference: JWST has an optical resolution of 0.07 arcseconds. It’s a mirror 22 feet in diameter though, not something you’d put inside a missile guidance package.

          • reinei@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Well but I am!

            Although, we would still need to get it back here… Okay so first we send two more rockets after it! One to return it on and one with the/a human engineer on board to pack it back up.

            I mean we can hardly have it return while unpacked. That would damage the delicate heat baffles! And we need those to shield it from the rockt engine at the back of our missile so it doesn’t start targeting itself because it no longer knows where it is/isn’t…

      • RiceMunk@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 days ago

        Holy shit. I just realised that the reason they’re building the ELT is so they can mount it on a missile and shoot down an F-35 at some point.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      and then also dealing with the F-35 itself, even if you managed to lock on and target it, it will have anti-warfare capabilities you have to contend with.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    143
    ·
    8 days ago

    If a fighter jet is within visual range of a camera, it’s already too late. And that’s if there aren’t any clouds.

    • Slab_Bulkhead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      8 days ago

      your not thinking like a musk, not if the government pays the subscription and contract for his early warning camera drone balloon swarm thing or something something they could run on ketamine or something.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Part of the reason air defences mostly rely on radar and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum from at least 3 locations using triangulation to build a precise map of objects in the sky, but just like cameras that doesn’t work when the objects in question are too high or hidden behind objects. From there you can send countermeasures to intercept coordinates and then arm them to search for nearby objects via infrared.

      Using the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum is pretty much useless in modern weapons. I remember seeing even a Tank operator’s display being totally jank because they don’t use normal cameras either, perhaps because they wanted data to train machines to do it instead of human operators? Idk, didn’t make sense to me.

  • riodoro1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    8 days ago

    His fucking obsession with computer vision. He’s so convinced he’s right he forgot that clouds exist… and his cars plow straight into obstacles.

    • el_bhm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      No no. See guessing objects from flat images is much better than using math and lidar. Especially if you may have a flawed llm model.

      Given how advanced our math and knowledge of radar is, it is literally stupid to use them.

      See, those, radar, lidar and math give you a 3d objects.

      Oh, wait. It is the other way around.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      He’s not, otherwise he would know that “low light sensitivity” cameras aren’t “sensitive in low-light conditions” but “with lower than normal light sensitivity”.

      In an imaginary world where cameras are way more expensive, he’d absolutely be pushing LiDAR in cars. The metrics he cares about are cost and marketability (cool factor), or money for short.

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yeah, the “lidar is useless” guy whose cars are consistently crashing into things when visibility is bad is telling us that he can do the same thing with missile targeting systems… Sounds like a great idea

      • PyroNeurosis
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yeah, well, missiles are supposed to crash into things. The right things? Not his job.

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    8 days ago

    That fucker really thinks he’s so smart when all he does is constantly demonstrate what an idiot he is.

  • Goldholz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Says the guy that produces AND designed the cyber truck

    • slurpeesoforion@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      7 days ago

      Look. Just because people hope to not see it and actively avoid looking in the general direction of, does not make the cyber truck invisible.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Well, my kids don’t play Fortnite, at least not at our house (family rule). So if that’s the case, it’s because their friends told them about it.

        • dmention7@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          8 days ago

          I don’t have kids, but when I was a kid I loved Spaghetti-Os and that candy that comes in a toothpaste tube but is literally just gelatinous sugar syrup. I probably would’ve loved the cybertruck too.

        • Tyfud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          It’s a simple design, like a boxcar you’d race with your dad at the local boy scouts event. It appeals to children who don’t understand how airflow works and just like seeing big bulky tank like things. To them, it looks like a Tonka toy.

          But in the real world, things like fluid dynamics are important.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            It also weighs enough that it cant even pull off being decent by being light like old jeeps. Sure they were literally brick shaped but they could be moved by like 4 guys with relative ease.

  • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    8 days ago

    Also… Fighters are fast, the point is you should fire the missile before you see it.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    8 days ago

    Looks like being rich and surrounding yourself with yes-people is the #1 cause of sitting confidently at the top of the Dunning-Krueger curve.

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Can’t these things aerosolize you from beyond the fucking horizon? How helpful are those AI powered low light cameras when they’re phase transitioned by a missile launched from a hundred miles away?

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 days ago

      You’d need a camera network spanning the entire battlefield. And it’d need telephoto lenses at the very least, because stealth fighters are high and small. And it’d need to stay connected after an initial missile exchange.

      I don’t buy for a moment that nobody in the Pentagon has thought of this, and explained why it’s not a dealbreaker in a classified report.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          We’re talking about stealth jets here, though…

          They don’t give much of a conventional radar return. Which is why Musk even brought up his definitely-new definitely-original idea.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        Telephoto lenses have a low field of vision. You’d want very high resolution wide angle sensors. Or maybe a combination of the two, where the wide angle cameras spot interesting things for the narrow angle ones to look closer at.

        The difference between the two would be like when they went from U2 spy planes to satellite imagery, going from thin strips of visibility to “here’s the hemisphere containing most of Russia”.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          The trick being that wide angle and high resolution means very high expense, and probably a lot of power and ruggedness tradeoffs. For a satellite that’s fine, for this application I kind of think a cluster of narrow-view cameras would be way cheaper and more practical.