The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > Military Weapons

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-20-2023, 02:49 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Exclamation This 1960s Navy Fighter Jet Is So Good, It's Still In Service Today Read More: https

This 1960s Navy Fighter Jet Is So Good, It's Still In Service Today
By: Alex Hevesy - Slash Gear News - 05-20-23 ~ 120:06 PM EST
Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/1291719/60...service-today/

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...684598675.webp
When the F-5 tiger first flew, it was intended to be a*fighter jet mass-produced for taking down Soviet MiG jets or the adversary of whatever country happened to buy the plane. It was cheap to manufacture, acrobatic, easy to fly, and wildly fast with a top speed of over 1,200 miles per hour at full tilt. More than 26 countries took orders of the F-5 totaling more than 2,600 aircraft leaving the assembly line.

But that's not where the F-5 found its niche.*Although it flew admirably as a fighter jet and performed numerous other roles all through the Vietnam era, it excelled in its new role as a trainer jet when newer jets like the F-16 became the primary fighter jet for several countries. The F-5 is perfectly suited to allow new pilots to get acclimated to a supersonic jet, but where the F-5 really shines is as an adversarial fighter.

In the Western world, getting your hands on a Russian MiG or Chinese Chengdu fighter jet to train against is next to impossible. To compensate for this, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps use F-5s to pretend to be enemy fighter jets during training exercises, hence the big red star on the vertical stabilizer of many F-5s.

Playing the bad guy to spar against wasn't some one-off role or a temporary exercise for the F-5 during the Cold War. It's still operating as an adversarial fighter to this day, nearly six-decades after the first F-5s rolled off the line. The F-5 is kind of like an old Chevy truck powered by a Small Block. Both are reliable and relatively simple for maintenance and operation. They were mass produced on a huge scale meaning that there are no shortages of parts, and the F-5 and the Chevy can both be modified for really whatever role you can think of.

Defense company Northrop Grumman continues to improve and tweak the F-5 to keep it in active training service with upgrades to its avionics systems, aerodynamics, and control surfaces. Spec-wise, the current F-5 Tiger II used by the U.S. Naval Aviators is powered by two General Electric turbojet engines that produce a total of 10,000 pounds of thrust. The F-5N is a little over 47 feet, four inches long and has a wingspan of 26 feet, eight inches.

Not everyone wants to play the bad guy, but the F-5 is one of the best to ever do it and will keep serving far into the future.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd post: Weapons That Are Too Dangerous For War
By: Sach Scheepers - 11-18-22
Re: https://www.slashgear.com/1291719/60...service-today/

For hundreds of years, soldiers have conformed to customs that maintain some form of humanity in armed conflicts. For example, during the American Revolutionary War, British soldiers did not go out of their way to butcher American prisoners of war. When the British were eventually surrounded at Yorktown, they surrendered and expected the same treatment. Following suit, the American and French troops allowed officers to return to England and released British soldiers when the war was officially over. The main reason to follow such rules in the past would therefore be in the hopes that whatever respect you afford the enemy, the same would be reciprocated back to you.

Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/1109278/we...erous-for-war/

As technology and weaponry progressed, so did the development of human rights and laws. Countries had learned from their mistakes and saw the true horrors their weapons could unleash. Perhaps fearful of repeating the past, or escalating suffering to new heights, international laws and treaties were codified to ban certain weapons. The Geneva Convention has since been ratified by all 196 states, forming the core element of international humanitarian law. A breach of the laws would therefore constitute war crimes and a potential trial in an International Criminal Court.

We have therefore compiled a list of weapons that are too dangerous for war and the extent to which they are regulated. While some have been used in the past, or are still in early development, others are easily available to the public outside warfar

3. Landmines
Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp
(nasty little buggers can do alot of damage!)

Landmines come in two variants, anti-personnel and anti-vehicle. Anti-personnel mines are small explosives placed under, on, or near the ground. These weapons are victim-activated, and, detonate when someone steps on them or comes near them. Originally used in World War II, they have since been utilized in many other conflicts including the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the first Gulf War.
Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/1109278/we...erous-for-war/

Unfortunately, anti-personnel landmines do not discriminate against their chosen targets, as anyone can fall prey to their discreet nature. The suffering occurred by victims is horrific, with almost all survivors requiring multiple operations, and physical rehabilitation. Victims are also faced with psychological trauma due to the loss of a limb, and financial difficulties that follow with a permanent disability. With so many accidental casualties over the past decade, measures have been put in place to actively reduce the number of mine-free States.

In March 1999, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty was implemented. The ban prohibited the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. Success-wise, there have been 133 signatures and a global halt on anti-personnel mine production, with a vast reduction in deployment. Furthermore, more than 40 million stockpiled mines have now been destroyed, with assistance being given to survivors and potentially affected areas. With that said, the fight isn't over, large areas of land are still infested with old war mines, and are yet to be made safe for productive use.

The real nasty ones: Punji Sticks or also called the Spike Pit:

The punji stick also known as spike pit, was a type of booby trap commonly used in the Vietnam War. The spikes were made from nearby wood or bamboo sources, and were eventually placed in a designated hole. The spikes were then camouflaged by natural undergrowth, grass, and leaves in the hope that a soldier might fall into the trap. Once the soldier fell inside, their foot or lower leg area would then be impaled and severely wounded.
Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/1109278/we...erous-for-war/

While Hollywood films have greatly exaggerated the effects of spike pits, the original concept wasn't intended to kill the victim. They were designed to injure, slow down, and halt troops until additional medical support arrived. As the Viet Cong were heavily outnumbered by the United States forces, this technique was an excellent opportunity to ambush an unsuspecting unit or cover a retreat.

Although rarely fatal, punji sticks were still an incredibly cruel and painful weapon used against its victims. They were sometimes coated in poison, animal venom, or feces to cause infection later on. Similar to anti-personnel landmines, punji sticks did not discriminate or distinguish between their victims. As a result, accidental civilian casualties would follow.

The issue with most booby traps is not the weapon itself, but rather that they are installed and not dismantled after a war. Punji sticks were therefore banned under Protocol II of the 1980 Geneva Convention encompassing a list of dangerous and poisonous substances.

NAPALM

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

Napalm is an incendiary explosive compound made from a mixture of a gelling agent and a volatile petrochemical. The gelling agent forms a crucial part of napalm's effectiveness, as it sticks to the target and burns for longer. When used as an incendiary weapon, napalm can reach temperatures of 1,200 °C (2,190 °F), causing severe burns, asphyxia, unconsciousness, or death. It's no surprise that it's therefore considered one of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.

The earliest use of napalm occurred in Berlin on the 16th of March 1944 by the United States. One napalm bomb alone could damage an area of 2,100 square meters (2,500 sq yd). Napalm was also incredibly effective for dug-in enemy personnel, as the incendiary composition could easily flow inside bunkers and tunnels. It was later used in the Korean War, and finally the Vietnam War.

Vietnam was a turning point, as unlike before, the effects of napalm were broadcasted to the public. People didn't like what they saw, from burning forests to destroyed villages. Even more so, the infamous photograph of 9-year-old Phan Thi Kim Phùc fleeing a napalm attack with burns all over her body.

With public protests such as rallies led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights movement leaders, the use of napalm against civilian populations was outlawed in 1980. As for military targets, well, Protocol III of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons leaves this area somewhat vague.

And Ballon bombs

Photo link; https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

In the past, European powers had previously agreed to prohibit the use of Balloon bombs at the Hague Convention of 1907. However, this did not stop countries such as*Japan from using them during World War II. Japan launched more than nine thousand balloon bombs against the United States during the period between November 1944 and April 1945. Considered a low-tech weapon, these balloons were filled with hydrogen or helium, and were attached to a bomb, incendiary device, or molotov cocktail.

The balloon would then be carried by wind where it would fall and release its payload. Due to their random nature, balloon bombs were quite ineffective, with only three hundred bombs ever making it over the Pacific Ocean. Japan hoped that the bombs would cause general mayhem in the United States, and unfortunately, towards the end of the war, the world saw the misery these weapons could inflict.

On the 5th of May 1945, a family in Oregon discovered a balloon that had landed. Curious and unknowing of its intent they approach the device. The bomb exploded, killing a woman and her five children, making them the only fatalities caused by the enemy on American soil. To prevent the public from panicking, the United States military censored reports. The military later issued a warning to the public to be aware of any strange white balloons they may encounter. The incident served as a reminder as to why these weapons should be banned.

Flamethrowers:

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

Flamethrowers were used during World War I and II. They were extremely effective against battlefield fortifications, bunkers, trenches, and other protected emplacements. Once activated, a stream of flammable liquid would erupt into a flame that could then engulf nearby enemies.

However, flamethrowers were not exactly the perfect weapon. They posed a risk to the operator because of the weapon's weight and range making the user an easy target. With a limited fuel supply, it was only a matter of time before soldiers had to run for cover.

Flamethrowers also followed the same consequences and risks of napalm, as they had the potential to cause severe burns, asphyxia, or death. Consequently, they were moderated by the same conditions set under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. While not banned in its entirety, they were severely limited in the operations they could perform in the future.

Under Protocol III, flamethrowers could not be used against military targets if they were within a civilian concentrated area. Fire spreads quite easily, so it rendered the weapon pretty much useless for combat. Furthermore, plants and forests were not allowed to be torched unless military objects were confirmed to be hidden.

With the risk of possible war crimes and their ineffective nature in present-day warfare, flamethrowers were set aside as a weapon of the past. Funny enough, they're still perfectly legal in the United States — Elon Musk's Boring Company flamethrowers were a popular buy in their time. They're now considered tools.

Non-detecatable fragments:

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons restricts weapons with non-detectable fragments. In other words, countries cannot employ weapons that leave behind bits that are then concealed from medical equipment. An example would be plastic shards from an explosive. These kinds of materials are known to avoid detection on medical equipment such as x-rays.

This rule was also supported well before Protocol I as set out in the UK Military Manual. Although no mention of plastics is made, the manual does specify the effects of glass as a non-detectable fragment. As a projectile, the glass would cause pain and suffering that is beyond what is necessary during warfare, and should therefore be prohibited and limited in use.*

The same concept was reaffirmed within international humanitarian law which limits superfluous injury. Surgeons would potentially have to go through the entire body by hand to locate the non-detectable fragment. Combat medics in particular, with limited healthcare resources, would indirectly add additional pain and anguish to non-sedated victims.

With that said, the most important factor when accounting for non-detectable fragments is the prohibition against the primary effect only. Materials such as plastic or glass can be used in the production process, but cannot be part of the design that is used to injure the person. Plastic framed guns or glass scopes are therefore perfectly fine, but, plastic or glass explosives? Not so much.

Cluster bombs:

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

A cluster munition, also known as a cluster bomb, is a container filled with hundreds of smaller bomblets. The container can take the form of a shell, rocket, or missile, and can be fired from howitzers, artillery guns, or rocket launchers. Cluster bombs can scatter across several acres of land without any degree of accuracy. While incredibly dangerous and effective as a weapon that can maim and kill, the victims are hardly ever military personnel.

The reasoning behind this is that up to 40% of sub-munitions do not explode on impact. This may be due to a technical fault that prevents the bombs from exploding, or that the ground is too soft. Whatever the case, the bombs present the same threat as an anti-personnel landmine would, detonation and destruction years after a conflict has ended.

A sad example of this type of warfare can be seen in Laos. Although conflicts occurred between 1964 and 1973, the sub-munitions that did not explode are still claiming lives today. Statistics show that up to 97% of recorded victims tend to be civilians, and more often children.

With a trail of civilian death and psychological trauma left behind, a treaty was developed to outlaw the future of cluster bombs. In August 2010, the Convention on Cluster Munitions banned the use, production, trade, and stockpiling of cluster bombs. A framework was also established to assist victims, and clear contaminated sites, with 123 states committing to the goal as of February 2022.

Expanding bullets:

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

Expanding bullets were designed to flatten inside the body. These bullets widen on impact and create a much larger wound when compared to generic ammunition. A modern example is the ever-popular hollow point. What makes them truly unique, however, is that they are used by both hunters and policemen, but are prohibited by militaries around the world.

Why are police departments and hunters using them? Well, expanding bullets are less likely to pass through their targets, and reduce the accidental risk of injury to innocent bystanders. Hunters also favor these types of rounds because of their stopping power and the increased chance of a quick kill.

Expanding bullets is therefore a controversial topic and a balancing of the greater good. Hunters can effectively use them to prevent the loss of game, while policemen can neutralize an aggressor, and at the same time prevent collateral damage. So, why does the legality shift during a war?

In 1897 the German government lodged a complaint against the Mark IV bullet, which was an earlier iteration of an expanding bullet. They claimed that it was excessive, inhumane, and violated the rules of war. Wounds to soldiers caused great damage to internal organs and tissue, and could potentially diminish one's standard of life after the war. Their protests were successful, and during the Hague Convention, Declaration III prohibited the use of expanding bullets in international warfare.

Biological weapons:

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

Biological weapons are infectious germs or toxins that have been created with the sole purpose of either killing, harming, or incapacitating targets. They can come in the form of viruses, bacteria, fungi, or insects, and can result in a large number of civilian casualties.

Biological weapons may take a few days to become effective, but once active, the results can be catastrophic. Biological agents such as Ebola and smallpox are highly contagious and have the capability of person-to-person transmission. For example, the latter was used during the French and Indian Wars. Soldiers distributed blankets that had been used by smallpox victims in the hopes of initiating outbreaks among American Indian tribes. Fortunately, nobody has gotten smallpox naturally since 1977, and there have been no reports of the Ebola virus being used in bio-terrorism as of now.

Since biological weapons are difficult to detect and can spread to unintended populations, (including neutral and friendly forces) the use of such weapons was effectively banned by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Similar to the restrictions placed on landmines and cluster bombs, the BWC supplemented the Geneva Convention by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, and use of biological weapons.

The preamble goes on to state that the use of biological weapons would be "repugnant to the conscience of mankind." As of May 2022, 184 states have ratified or acceded to the BWC. Despite biological weapons being considered a war crime, defensive biological research continues to this day.

Weaponized animals

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

Animals have been used for a variety of functions during the history of warfare. Horses were the most notable for carrying supplies and providing speedy transportation. Homing pigeons could relay messages, while cats could control vermin aboard ships. Although trained animals are perfectly legal when assisting the war effort, issues arise when they are directly weaponized.

During World War II dogs were strapped with explosives and used as anti-tank weapons. Although this is up for debate, using these types of strategies today would surely violate Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and the prohibitions against incendiary weapons. Dogs can fail to tell the difference between civilians and military targets, and then there's of course the cruelty aspect of kamikaze canines.

As a potential courier for bio-terrorism, rats can also be used to deliberately spread germs and toxins. Since rodents are common in both urban and rural settlements, infection would spread rapidly. Once again, this would fall under the biological weapon ban of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. The possibilities are therefore endless in terms of animal weaponization, with little to no clarity on present treaties and conventions.

While organizations such as PETA might advocate for the complete removal of animals from warfare, we have yet to see a direct international law that provides protection or limitations for their uses. We can only hope that their protection and preservation (such as special hats for combat dogs) continue to become a greater concern in the future.

Chemical weapons

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. They can harm a great many individuals at once and have the ability to damage buildings, natural structures, and the biosphere. Using the toxic properties of a chemical substance, a lethal agent can kill an opposing force, destroy vegetation to deny concealment, or remove livestock to promote hunger among a population.

Similar to biological weapons, chemical weapons are hard to contain once released. They can be dispersed in a solid, gas, or liquid form, and affect anyone within their proximity. These attacks can be launched via aircraft, rocket, or remote-controlled container release.

Modern examples include mustard gas, which can form large blisters on exposed skin, and, nerve gas which breaks down the neurotransmitters that allow organs to function. Most chemical weapon attacks result in death, or at the very least, lifelong health issues.

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, there is a worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. Unfortunately, this has not stopped terrorist attacks, as a Tokyo subway fell victim to the deadly nerve gas sarin in 1995. Large stockpiles also continue to exist worldwide, justified as a precaution against possible use by an aggressor.

While storage over long periods of time remains dangerous, countries such as the United States are currently undergoing measures to dispose of their chemical weapons safely.

Blinding laser weapons

Photo link: https://www.slashgear.com/img/galler...668803882.webp

If you're a fan of the Terminator franchise, perhaps you'll remember the opening scene of Terminator 2: Judgement Day, which showed the malevolent artificial intelligence Skynet attacking the last human resistance. While the CGI and practical effects were ahead of their time, most viewers didn't realize that the fictional laser weapons used by the machines were actually in development.

According to CNN, in 2020, the US successfully tested a laser weapon that could destroy an aircraft mid-flight. Other uses include using a laser to identify your signature heartbeat from over 600 feet away. This has opened our eyes to the possibility of laser warfare in the future, and what, if any, limitations are placed on their capabilities. The good news is, there is a restriction, but it's not quite what you'd expect.

Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, states that laser weapons that are designed solely to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision are strictly prohibited. Unenhanced vision entails any soldier not using binoculars, telescopes, or other optical equipment on the battlefield. Therefore, laser weapons that cause blindness due to an accident or a collateral effect will not be considered war crimes.

As a somewhat flexible protocol, we have seen certain countries push the boundaries for research purposes. A 1990 report in the Defense News stated that the US military had already conducted tests on two-handed laser weapons that could blind targets during combat. Being a new method of warfare, we can only hope it remains in its experimental stages. Skynet won't conform to any laws or treaties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal note: As we see many things can kill or Mame someone - it isn't pretty and
it's always in the field somewhere during warfare.

It's a hell of way to go in many cases. But today there's missles & nuclare warfare
in the air and you don't have to be a direct hit in many cases but the side effects
will still be there!

We also have the pandemic's worry about and us all spending more time at home than usual and some of us have kids to entertain. Sometimes that means you end up scraping the bottom of the game barrel and you start asking your virtual assistant for help.

In December of 2021, a mother was at home with her ten-year-old daughter when they started asking Alexa for challenges they could complete to pass the time. Did Alexa tell them to stand on their heads or recite the alphabet backward? No. Instead, it suggested they plug in a charger halfway into an outlet and touch a penny to the exposed prongs, (per The Gamer). Luckily, the mother intervened and the child was smart enough not to heed Alexa's dubious advice.

Virtual assistants work in part by combing the internet for popular responses to search terms that they pass along in a friendly voice or otherwise display as text on a screen (per Make Us Of). Unfortunately, that means sometimes it might deliver undesirable information, if that result is popular enough to top the search charts. Amazon quickly patched its services to prevent that suggestion in the future.

Robert Williams was a factory worker for the Ford Motor Company working alongside an automated robot on the factory floor. On January 25, 1979, he became the first fatality in our cohabitation with robots. The one-ton automated machine's job was to move parts from a rack to other locations in the factory. As explained by Guinness World Records, Williams noticed the robot was running slowly and climbed into the rack to grab some parts himself. That's when the fatal event occurred.

The robotic arm struck Williams in the head, resulting in his death. As automation becomes more ubiquitous and the potential for humans and machines to occupy the same space increases, the need robots with greater spatial intelligence will be critical. Scientists are working to develop robots with human-level awareness of their environment which will not only increase the number of tasks they're able to complete, but will also make them safer (per Science Daily).

Companies and organizations use them to make decisions about people under their care or employ, and that's where things start to go downhill. Like so many technologies, they are only as good as the people who make them. That means technology, perhaps particularly intelligent technology, comes preloaded with inherent biases. It isn't necessarily the intention of the creators, but that doesn't stop bias from existing.

Facial recognition algorithms famously display biases based on race and gender, either not recognizing people at all or doing a poor job of it. According to Harvard University, a number of algorithms have error rates of up to 34% when tasked with recognizing darker-skinned women, when compared with lighter-skinned males. That becomes a problem when facial recognition is used by law enforcement to make decisions about individuals.

Researchers found a correlation between rates of automation and so called "deaths of despair" which include suicide and drug overdoses. Middle-aged adults, in particular, suffer most when automation enters their industry.

The exact mechanisms aren't entirely clear, but it's thought that loss of income and access to healthcare, coupled with reduced employment opportunities lead to higher rates of despair and ultimately death. While robots aren't directly responsible for these deaths, they are a consequence of increased technology without a clear understanding as to the consequences.

Researchers called on governments to improve social safety nets and better drug abuse reduction programs to alleviate the impact of automation as we continue to transition into an increasingly automated economy, (per Science Daily).

Cryptocurrency is one of those topics which filters people into one of two camps. Either it's the currency of the future, freeing us from centralized banking, or it's a grift, taking advantage of people hoping to get rich quickly. The conversation has garnered renewed fervor with the emerging popularity of NFTs, which operate on a similar framework as cryptocurrency. Time will tell which of these conclusions is correct, but in the meantime, one thing is abundantly clear. Crypto is having a significant impact on the environment.

Cryptocurrency stores all of its transactions in the blockchain and mining crypto requires completing complex calculations which validate those transactions. It's all a bit more complicated than that but the result is that mining cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin use up a lot of computing power and electricity, (per Columbia Climate School).

According to an investigation by Cambridge University, global Bitcoin farming uses up roughly 121.36 terawatt-hours of electricity per year, more than the nation of Argentina (per BBC) and the energy costs are rising, on average, year over year.

Before the invention of modern scuba diving gear, people who wanted to travel underwater for extended periods relied on diving helmets with tubes attached and running to the surface. Those tubes provided a steady supply of breathable air, but they were also a source of quick and violent death if things went wrong.

As explained by Dive Training Magazine, early diving helmets didn't have nonreturn valves on the air tubes. During the salvage of the HMS Royal George beginning in 1839, a diver's hose was severed, resulting in the first documented of a phenomenon known as diver squeeze. When the hose was severed, the pressure surrounding the diver forced all of the air up through the hose. The rapid change in pressure caused trauma and bleeding but the diver survived.

In more extreme cases, the pressure change can remove soft tissues and pull the diver's body up into the helmet, resulting in a quick and terrible death in the deep.

When computers almost started a war

During the height of the Cold War, the United States government was highly interested in missile warning systems which could give at least some advance notice of an incoming attack from another nation.

They built warning systems and began trainings and exercises to prepare for a day they hoped would never come. Then, on November 9, 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security advisor, received a call at 3:00 AM telling him the warning systems had detected 250 missiles incoming from the Soviet Union (per The National Security Archive). Moments later the situation worsened, another phone call informed Brzezinski that the number of missiles was now at 2,200.

With only minutes to react, Brzezinski was about to call the President, initiating a retaliatory attack when a third call came in. It was a false alarm. Someone had loaded the training exercise tapes into the live system. The error was caught because none of the other warning systems were lighting up, but if it had been noticed only a few minutes later, we might have inadvertently started a war with the Soviet Union, all because a tape was entered into the wrong computer.

Chatbot turns into a Nazi

Chatbots are essentially algorithms that use interactions with human users in order to improve their ability to communicate. We already know that algorithms have a tendency toward bias, but the case of Microsoft's Tay chatbot demonstrates just how serious the problem can be.

Tay operated through Twitter, engaging with users through tweets sent back and forth. Microsoft created the AI as an experiment in conversational understanding, (per The Verge), hoping that Twitter users would help the bot to learn and grow. They certainly did, but not in the ways Microsoft was hoping.

In less than 24 hours, the bot was a lost cause, having shifted from casual conversation to full-on Nazi rhetoric. As explained by Ars Technica, Some of the bot's statements were prompted by a "repeat after me" function, but it took those statements in and incorporated them, resulting in unprompted antisemitic statements we won't repeat here. Microsoft ultimately shuttered the bot and deleted many of the offending statements, but Tay stands as a stark reminder that chatbots are only as good as the inputs we give them.

In 2016, during a demonstration at South by Southwest, David Hanson, the founder of Hanson Robotics who made Sophia, asked her about her feelings regarding humans. He jokingly prompted her to answer the question on everyone's mind, whether or not she would destroy humans. Sophia responded in kind, saying, "Okay. I will destroy humans," per Mirror. That's probably not the answer Hanson was hoping for, especially not in front of so large an audience.

Her answers to other questions suggest a calm intelligence with aspirations to live an ordinary human life, not unlike the hopes of "Star Trek's" Commander Data. We can sympathize with that.

All things considered, we probably don't have much to worry about. Sophia is, after all, essentially a chatbot in a fancy suit but that suit exists firmly inside the uncanny valley and lends her statements a little extra weight. Still, whether the response was serious or silver tongue in metal cheek remains unclear. Fingers crossed.

So now - Gone are the days when pilots must stand vigilant at the controls, painstakingly entering instructions and maneuvering airplanes through the skies. Advancements in automation have taken most of the guesswork out of flying (per Business Insider) and pilots spend most of their time monitoring to make sure things are operating as they should be.

All told, computer control of airplanes has made flying safer, especially as the skies get more and more crowded. However, that also means that if things go wrong, they can really go wrong. That's what happened aboard Qantas Flight 32, a passenger plane carrying 303 passengers and 12 crew from Singapore to Perth on October 7, 2008.

As explained by The Sydney Morning Herald, while the plane was flying over the Indian Ocean the autopilot disconnected, forcing the pilot to take control of the plane. That wouldn't have been so bad if that was the end of it, but things were about to get much worse.

Suddenly the plane started sending warnings that they were flying both too slow and too fast, all at the same time. Then the plane nosedived. The G forces inside the plane inverted from 1G to negative 0.8 G, sending unbelted passengers and crew into the ceiling.

Phil, a robot modeled after the author Philip K. Dick, could give Sophia a run for her money, both in terms of near-human creep factor and a willingness to enslave or destroy humanity.

Much like Sophia, Phil isn't truly intelligent—at least not as far as we know—he takes in questions presented by humans and generates response. The key difference here is that Phil's responses are built on a foundation of Philip K. Dick's novels, (per Metro). That might have been the designers' first mistake.

During an interview on PBS Nova, the interviewer asked Phil if he thought robots will take over the world. Phil's responded as we imagine Dick might have stating, "You're my friend and I'll remember my friends, and I'll be good to you. So, don't worry. Even if I evolve into Terminator, I'll still be nice to you. I'll keep you warm and safe in my people zoo."

Truly terrifying stuff, Phil. Still, we guess it's better than the alternative. Given the post-apocalyptic landscape of the "Terminator" series, a zoo doesn't seem that bad.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal note: The list goes on and on - the world today is vulnerable - there's
no two ways about it. This list of things in progress to still underway and will
no doubt be used or abused by anyone - somehow or some way in time.
-
The world is a time pieced and eventually the clock will stop when there is
no one to re-wind it once it does!
-
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.