Well now we know how Nvidia got that $4 trillion and why GPUs are so scarce.
Great. Just what we need. AI controlled swarms of militarized drones.
Here’s to hoping their drivers perform the same as Nvidia drivers on Linux +/-15 years ago 🤞
Google searches…“my drone works fine on first boot. After restart it seems really slow, nvidia driver killerdrone357 motherboard 2024”. “Slow drone after nvidia install” . “slow drone nvidia driver update”.
What’s stopping Russia from importing gray market gaming devices and repurposing them for drones? How are these embargoes even supposed to work?
They’re not necessarily meant to make it impossible, just more expensive.
they can do it through turkey, CHINA and INDIA.
this is absolutely nVidia propaganda, holy shit @catty@lemmy.world
I don’t understand how being smart and not needing human input makes these weapons more effective, the job of these is to fly to a set of coordinates and blow up, where does the supercomputer come in?
The issue is the drone figuring out where it is, smart methods can definitely aid the aircraft in evading and overwhelming Ukrainian defenses but if the shaheds are forced to fly high to avoid large caliber machine guns what set of new choices is a hypercomplex AI brain going to afford a flying wing bomb at high altitude?
What is there to outsmart about a volley of large caliber machine gun fire?
Swarming. Especially in areas denied by electronic warfare. Currently the Shaheds are built for cost (and sanctions) reasons, and are ‘dumbfired’ at coordinates/an object. GPS and inertial navigation fly towards the target, but it doesn’t make any decisions. Launch, set orientation, hit waypoint, next orientation, next waypoint, repeat until final attack phase.
What it can’t do is react. To anything: bad weather, Ukrainian EW/air defense, tall trees or buildings, other aircraft nearby, etc they just fly along their pre-programmed flight plan, providing any defenders with a predictable heading and airspeed to intercept and shoot at.
Add onboard autonomous AI and Russia has a lot more options.
- The camera sees/microphone heard a bunch of tracer bullets flying past? Start evasive maneuvering, diving and changing speed. Much harder to hit an approaching/leaving aircraft that is also changing speed and/or direction.
- Other Shaheds launched earlier are getting signal loss from EW or shot down? The remaining craft can send and receive that info to all the others, and re-route the pack around that area of air defense.
- Image recognition of high value targets like HIMARS or Patriot/IRIS-T allows the Shaheds to immediately ditch their pre-programmed mission, and all focus fire on that newly discovered target instead of the original hospital or apartment building that Russia was targeting.
- Data sharing among Shaheds in flight can allow more efficient use, so instead of committing a dozen or so Shaheds to a single target like a military command post to ensure at least a few get through air defense and hit it, now they can communicate if it actually has been hit or not, and refocus/divert the remaining Shaheds in that wave.
Essentially think of it as the difference between the dumbest box of rocks AI in a video game that doesn’t react, versus going player versus player online.
I am sure these kinds of tactics will have impacts but it just doesn’t make sense to me why this is going to revolutionize the effectiveness of these weapons.
Fly high = very, very easy to spot for active radar and passive sensors. Which is why almost everything that isn’t yeeting glide-kit dumbbombs from half a country away, flys incredibly low. Like “scraping the trees” low, because hiding among the EM backscatter makes evading airborne sensors like AWACS or interceptor jets easier, and ground radar has a real hard time with that whole curvature of the earth thing.
So the Shaheds are going to be under 100m AGL elevation, which means the AA gun trucks and airburst-flak are the answer for Ukraine - so the counter is back to either dodging bullets, or dodging the defender’s location . The old Shaheds don’t, they blithely soak up Ukrainian gunfire without reaction before blowing up. These new AI powered models represent a big jump in credibility.
No, the whole point of all this flurry of concern is that shaheds are flying higher because AA gun trucks and airburst-flak have already been effective enough to strategically deny the low altitude backline of Ukraine at large to Russia.
So the shaheds have to fly higher… and thus dodging or making smart manuevers becomes less and less of a salient concept when you are thousands of meters from the nearest terrain feature that isn’t an empty void.
On the otherhand, as smart as the Shaheds get, they could have actual living human brains inside them… and coordinated machine gun fire from teams of humans would still hard counter low level flight. Have you ever bothered to watch how good humans can get at shooting clay pigeons with a shotgun…? Notice how there isn’t a large crisis in the shotgun hunter community that birds have gotten too smart to shoot anymore and they can only hit clay pigeons…
Russia desperately needs its shaheds to be effective, which means along some hardware or cost metric they need to be upgraded, changing the brain out so that when a .50 cal round blows through the wing the internal computer starts writing poetry about its impending death instead of resorting to a basic evasive manuever routine isn’t going to help things that much… I am sure there are major scary gains to make here but just saying “well now they are SMART” is the equivalent of the Windows commercials I see that are always trying to sell me new laptops in them that have AI WOW and are super vague about how that actually effects things materially…
I don’t buy it, Russia can have their super smart shaheds, I will pick your grandfather with a heart behind a machine gun…
I don’t understand how being smart and not needing human input makes these weapons more effective
Probably a lot about humans not usually liking killing other humans. Humans are more likely to accept a surrender or, miss a target due lack of dedication to taking a life or intentionally miss.
Probably a lot about humans not usually liking killing other humans. Humans are more likely to accept a surrender or, miss a target due lack of dedication to taking a life or intentionally miss.
This is not how soldiers work for the most part though.
This is not how soldiers work for the most part though.
Maybe modern professional soldiers. However, there was some research around WW2 with draftees and conscripts that suggested that in the case, a substantial number would not fire on the enemy or intentionally miss in close combat. There has been some debate over accuracy of the results but, the US military found them compelling enough to sink immense resources into attempting to address this through training.
Anecdotally, my grandfather was a volunteer and gunner on a landing craft in the Pacific and would have died, if not for the armor plate in front of him. He admitted to intentionally not shooting at enemy soldiers, when laying down suppressing fire, primarily damaging empty sheds and the like. Despite choosing to be there, he didn’t want to kill anyone.
Compare that to conscripts and draftees fighting in the Russia-Ukraine war and you’re a lot more likely to find people uncommitted to killing other human beings. Most human beings have a strong aversion to homicide, even in war.
Compare that to conscripts and draftees fighting in the Russia-Ukraine war and you’re a lot more likely to find people uncommitted to killing other human beings. Most human beings have a strong aversion to homicide, even in war.
You are confusing basic aspects of military training with regards to drilling people so that when violence starts happening they can keep functioning, with a desire to kill or a desire for violence.
A desire for violence does not make you a more effective warfighter, it simply doesn’t. There isn’t evidence of it, and the reason is obvious, modern warfare isn’t about getting the highest kill-death ratio or something. What makes you an effective warfighter is if you follow training and you have an unshakable desire to fight… which again has nothing to do with a desire for violence necessarily.
Does this mean that there will be people like your grandfather? Absolutely, if anything it was a good sign your grandfather didn’t want to murder people with a machine gun. If needed training could have helped your grandfather understand what he was doing as a skill not as a celebration of violence, but thankfully it wasn’t needed.
The answer to these questions is not to look for already violent people who have no natural incilination to avoid extreme violence, those people do not make good soldiers, they make good murderers…
Take for example US soldiers, of course with such a large military organization the quality of the troops will vary massively, but in general can you find evidence that during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that US troops were not sufficiently bloodthirsty to effectively fight the enemy? No… there was so many things wrong with those wars, but the capacity for violence among professional US soldiers was not the limting factor…?
In modern warfare most people are killed by crew served weapons like medium machine guns, rpgs, drones, mines/IEDs and most importantly artillery. These are weapons operated by professionals not murderers, in the same way that someone who prides themselves on being a skilled butcher doesn’t revel in the killing of the animal, but rather in the effectiveness of their skill. Unfortunately for Ukraine, a great number of UAV pilots have been given a burdern of having to kill very personally, perhaps even more personally than someone might with a gun and that is a terrible burden to carry. However, make no mistake, these soldiers do not look back and wish they hadn’t fought.
I think to speculate in the way you are is to misunderstood why people, HUMANS, fight at a basic level.
If humans are ever fully replaced on the battlefield, I promise you it won’t be because humans lack a sufficient capacity for explosive violence…
Wait, because it’s using NVIDIA, it’s a ‘digital predator’ and capable of ‘autonomous targeting and engagement’? Uhm, any graphics chip would allow this.
This is publicity for NVIDIA.
If it’s using it for AI, then using nvidia makes sense for the CUDA support.
And there’s similar that runs on AMD / intel chips now that would require less power.
