[DemonRaven]

Military's Self-Steering Bullets Can Hit Moving Targets

A video released by DARPA shows how the system uses real-time optical guidance to steer the ammunition to a moving or accelerating target, regardless of weather and other forms of interference.

In the video, an expert shooter fires at a moving target, and the self-steering bullet corrects its course to hit the target. Then, an untrained person who has never used a sniper rifle before takes aim at the moving target and the bullet still finds its mark.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/militarys-self-steering-bullets-can-hit-moving-targets-150429.htm

This is why them working with AI and robots makes me nervous.

[squarebear]

But this is nothing to do with AI. The shooter steers the bullet. There will always be weapons but to associate them with "the rise of Skynet" type scenarios is silly.

So an expert shoots at something first and then a novice can hit it. Surely, the target has already been hit?

[8pla.net]

Sqarebear,

Sounds like Raven may be talking about Artificial Intelligence Search Algorithms, which are a central topic of A.I.  What do you mean by this..."The shooter steers the bullet."
A shooter aims the gun, but can't steer a bullet traveling at 1700 miles an hour, once it is fired from the gun. 

You asked, "So an expert shoots at something first and then a novice can hit it. Surely, the target has already been hit?

Firstly, to clarify that "something" is a human being, trying to evade gun fire but the bullet is giving chase.  Chase and Evade algorithms are also central to A.I.  This is military we are discussing, so the target is generally a soldier.

So, a novice shoots and would miss the soldier, except the expert bullet is like a very small guided missile that locks on to and hits the soldier.   That's getting closer to a miniaturized Skynet, in my opinion.   

Lastly, this is all polite discussion... Your opinion may differ from mine.

[DemonRaven]

Does it have to be a skynet for it to be bad? I do not like them finding new ways to kill. Anything that takes humans partly out of the equation may seem better for all but really all it does is make it easier to kill someone and not really think about the fact that this is a human we are talking about. I have said time and time again. I do not like the military and I definitely don't like them messing with robots. They are reducing humans to targets that no one has to look at or see. That makes it a heck of a lot easier to pull a trigger in my opinion. You do not have to have self evolving robots or AI to do it in regards to what  I am objecting to.

[DemonRaven]

What I do not get is why you fight me so strongly on this. IT is not like I am saying chatbots are bad which is what aiml is. Chatbots are not neural networks.  There is a difference between the two. Do you have stock in the weapons division of a company or something?

I read alot and the USA military is not known for conducting the most humane experiments. They have done some pretty messed up things in the past. I doubt that other country's military is a  whole lot better.

[Art]

I kind of thought it was similar to the 2008 film Wanted with Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie where they could "curve the bullet in flight", but seems things have gotten more sophisticated.

At first it seemed the optics were doing the trick, by projecting a path or "leading" the shot to the moving target, but after reading more, it appears that there's something that enables the bullet to be "steered" toward the target.

At a target 1 mile away from the shooter, the bullet (50 Cal.) travelling at 3044 feet / second, will hit the target in 1.7345 seconds. That's not a whole lot of time to make course corrections!

We all know that war is hell and that some bad guys simply have to be taken out, but this puts a new slant on the modern sniper. Soon the technology will fall into the hands of all the bad guys. In the future I foresee hunters using the tech to target their prey with the greatest of ease and no skill required.

Yesterday's Science Fiction is tomorrow's Science Fact.

[Don Patrick]

There are tiny wing flaps on the bullet that steer it. Though I'm not sure how they fit optics inside it. Next up will be guided mini rockets with our names on it. But whether I've been shot by an expert sniper or by a novice with a curveball bullet, or by a robot wildly shooting 100 bullets in my general direction, doesn't change the fact that I'll be dead. The only difference is how many shots it'll take.

[squarebear]

Sorry I don't mean to upset anyone but just don't see the point in worrying about these things. There are always going to be weapons no matter what we think about it. Ok, most weapons are based on metal but I don't see a rally cry to ban metal.

Let's assume there is a war fought by robots on both sides. Once, one side loses, do you think they will just roll over and say well done? Of course not, they will then go in with their regular army. They might as well decide the outcome of war by playing chess. Wars fought solely by robots will NOT happen in our lifetime, as the recent DARPA challenges show.

[8pla.net]

I tend to enjoy when someone adds an opposite view to the discussion.

[Art]

As Eliza would say, "Did you come here because you tend to enjoy when someone adds an opposite view to the discussion?" Hehe! Couldn't help it!

If not for an opposite view we'd never have debates...nor wars...nor...hey...maybe you're on to something here!