Darpa Grand Challenge!!! Warning:Geek Factor 9

[Dean]

Anybody eese keeping up withe the Darpa Grand Challenge? Pretty cool considering last year's failures...

http://www.grandchallenge.org/

Maybe the WRC drivers should be scared?

[MPREZIV]

I've seen this! They have no driver in the vehicle, yes? That's amazing! I guess it's the same technology that USAF uses in some of the aircraft I've seen with no on-board pilot though. Cool!

[Dean]

Originally Posted by MPREZIV

I've seen this! They have no driver in the vehicle, yes? That's amazing! I guess it's the same technology that USAF uses in some of the aircraft I've seen with no on-board pilot though. Cool!

Not really. Planes are much easier really, nothing to hit mostly and most of the UAVs are remote controlled anyway.

These are entirely autonomous traveling at speeds up to 45MPH over open ground, mountain passes, through tight 1 lane tunnels(hard on GPS signals), over overpasses, passing other vehicles, avoiding everything from telephone poles to cliffs, etc.

The theory is that taking humans out of the driver seat in situations like supply convoys in potentially hostile territory, reconisace or mine sweeping.

[MPREZIV]

Ah Ha! I was obviously aware that avoiding an obstacle was more difficult than the air, but I never saw that they were completely un-piloted. I assumed they were likely remote-controlled. That makes it even cooler frankly!

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

The theory is that taking humans out of the driver seat in situations like supply convoys in potentially hostile territory, reconisace or mine sweeping.

Recon and mine sweeping missions maybe, but not supply lines. Reason being that A: soldiers are cheaper than smart robots (meaning training and supply, etc.) and B: supply convoys have to be defended. You need people to be able to organize a defense, fight smart, and be supremely adaptable to the conditions of a battlefield. So unmanned vehicles might become a part of our ground forces at some point, but only as a uniquely capable tool rather than a replacement for soldiers. Point vehicles, mine sweepers, decoys, etc.- but probably very rarely would they actually be acting autonomously. The Air Force however, is well on their way to having unmanned combat aircraft, whether autonomous or remote piloted. Go here, shoot/bomb that, avoid these electronic signal sources, evade enemy fire like this; nothing extremely difficult to consider when programming them. Plus, you can program it to hightail it when things just don't make sense or it is likely incapable of completing the mission. Escape is much easier for aircraft than ground vehicles.

/off topic

That said, the technology and achievements of the challenge is pretty sweet. I'd personally like to see the day where we can have autonomous ground transportation for logistics purposes domestically. Probably not using our current highway and rail systems, but at least reducing the load on them.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Recon and mine sweeping missions maybe, but not supply lines. Reason being that A: soldiers are cheaper than smart robots (meaning training and supply, etc.) and B: supply convoys have to be defended. You need people to be able to organize a defense, fight smart, and be supremely adaptable to the conditions of a battlefield. So unmanned vehicles might become a part of our ground forces at some point, but only as a uniquely capable tool rather than a replacement for soldiers. Point vehicles, mine sweepers, decoys, etc.- but probably very rarely would they actually be acting autonomously.

I'm confused to how having people driving supply trucks in a convoy is somehow better than having robots drive them. Let's say I've got a convoy: 2 HMVs, 4 supply trucks, 1 Bradley. They get attacked. The HMVs and Bradley return fire to try to protect the convoy, the trucks scatter to take cover. If the trucks are shot up, we lose the supplies and the drivers.

Now let's take the same convoy, except now the trucks are piloted by robots. They have essentially the same defensive capabilities, 'cept now, if they're destroyed we're just out some additional hardware. It's been shown that soldiers are far more valuable (both in ability and in cost to train) than hardware. IIRC each soldier costs something like $1.5M to train and equip. That's a hell of a lot more expensive than $300,000 in servos, sensors and computers.

That's *why* we use robots for recon and other high-risk operations, the hardware is far cheaper than the people. If people were so cheap, we'd build suicide cruise missles, and wouldn't bother with drones and the like. But it's more economical to get a job done w/ a 50% success rate at 1/3 the cost than to get a 90% success rate w/ the loss of soldiers. It's got nothing to do with the sanctity of human life, it's just a matter of affording the fight.

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

The Air Force however, is well on their way to having unmanned combat aircraft, whether autonomous or remote piloted. Go here, shoot/bomb that, avoid these electronic signal sources, evade enemy fire like this; nothing extremely difficult to consider when programming them. Plus, you can program it to hightail it when things just don't make sense or it is likely incapable of completing the mission. Escape is much easier for aircraft than ground vehicles.

As far as the "nothing extremely difficult" when it comes to autonomous vehicles... it's actually *extremely* difficult. What we've achieved is essentially a robot that can follow a map. In the 50 years or so we've been working on it, all we've come up with is "when you get to point X, turn left". Autonomous aircraft have the advantage of being able to employ canned routines (like a pre-programed anti-aircraft avoidance manuver), which make them look smart, but if they were placed up against a capable human opponent, they'd get whupped... ever play a video game?

The real reason that the Air Force is so interested in autonomous/remote piloted aircraft (aside from the aformentioned economic savings) is because we've just about reached the limits of human anatomy w/ regards to g-force. A remote/robot pilot can pull 20+ G's w/o breaking a sweat, while human pilots have about a limit of 9, and only for brief manuvers. An aircraft w/o a pilot can make up for it's lack of smarts by simply being so rediculously manuverable it's impossible to shoot down with current technology.

Finally, back to the Darpa project, there are some really good things that can come from this contest, outside of the military application. Besides just the experience with complex problem solving AI, I see this stuff ending up in the space program for remote rovers where the transmission delay is so long they have to drive themselves. Then the next step is AI for non-military vehicles... MattR and qksubi are gonna be outta work when robots are driving trucks and trains. And eventually I look forward to being able to get into my car for a long trip and just kicking back as the onboard computer drives me to Vegas at 180mph. I enjoy driving, but not for a long distance or in a straight line. The only problem is that we're probably another 50 years away from that sort of stuff... hell back in the 60's people assumed we'd have flying autonomous cars by 2000... when it comes to AI, people tend to drastically underestimate how difficult it actually is.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by sperry

That's *why* we use robots for recon and other high-risk operations, the hardware is far cheaper than the people. ....

It's got nothing to do with the sanctity of human life, it's just a matter of affording the fight.

This has been true for a long time in well trained & equipped armies; the soldiers are such a big investment that the army needs to take care in using them. Even Roman armies 2000 years ago had medics in battle that would attend to their wounded because their soldiers were some of the most well-trained (expensive) in the world, and couldn't be easily replaced.

[Dean]

Well, glad to see more folks got into this. I thoght I was the only one for a while there.
I'm still amazed how much better they are this year than last. 12 months is little time in this type of AI, Optical & sensor recognition type stuff.

I wish they hadn't put the speed limits on the vehicles. That is the one element that they eliminated from the vehicle having to determine. Safe speed for a given situation...

I think the teams should enter them in the next Baja 1000! Now that's a test.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Until they can go as fast as Robby Gordon they are failures.

[Dean]

Also, I forgot. Protecting an AI brain is much easier than a human brain since it does not have to be exposed like the sensors. Sensors for the AI are relatively cheap, and can be easily replaced if destroyed.

Unfortunately, the primary sensors for the human brain are not easily detached, or protected.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm confused to how having people driving supply trucks in a convoy is somehow better than having robots drive them. Let's say I've got a convoy: 2 HMVs, 4 supply trucks, 1 Bradley. They get attacked. The HMVs and Bradley return fire to try to protect the convoy, the trucks scatter to take cover. If the trucks are shot up, we lose the supplies and the drivers.

The Bradley is wishful thinking. Anything with heavier weeaponry than an M2 .50 cal is usually on one end or the other of the supply train. But the 2 HMMVs and 4 trucks is reasonable enough. So let's compare what happens to aconvential force supply convoy, a robot-driven convoy with human soldier defense accompaniment, and an all-AI convoy.

Originally Posted by sperry

Now let's take the same convoy, except now the trucks are piloted by robots. They have essentially the same defensive capabilities, 'cept now, if they're destroyed we're just out some additional hardware. It's been shown that soldiers are far more valuable (both in ability and in cost to train) than hardware. IIRC each soldier costs something like $1.5M to train and equip. That's a hell of a lot more expensive than $300,000 in servos, sensors and computers.

It doesn't take near that much to get a soldier to the battlefield. Numbers like that come from taking huge portions of the DoD budget and dividing by the number of soldiers within it. In reality, taking me from Day 1 to the end of my enlistment cost the Army far less than $1.5 million. $500k, tops. But the fiscal argument isn't really the reason there won't be any independent AI on the battlefield .

Originally Posted by sperry

That's *why* we use robots for recon and other high-risk operations, the hardware is far cheaper than the people. If people were so cheap, we'd build suicide cruise missles, and wouldn't bother with drones and the like. But it's more economical to get a job done w/ a 50% success rate at 1/3 the cost than to get a 90% success rate w/ the loss of soldiers. It's got nothing to do with the sanctity of human life, it's just a matter of affording the fight.

Recon and supply are two completely different missions. What you're really missing in these statements is simple: re-supply is absolutely crucial to waging war successfully. In a war, by which I mean an extended conflict lasting years, such as WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc., logistics are paramount to victory. You need bullets, gas, food, and clothes, or you can't fight at all. So, while 50% success at 30% of the cost saves money, it's no way to fight a war. Not only would our fighting units be insufficiently equipped to destroy the enemy, probably 2/3 of what didn't get to them would fall into enemy hands. More importantly, those supply convoys with no human defenders are going to be attacked far more often than they otherwise would be, and more successfully. Why bother fighting or even resisting the tanks, bradleys, and infantry, when all you have to do is stop them from getting fuel and ammo? Further, it is impossible to expect to create AI that, even if it could strategize and defend itself against armed combatants, would have serious issues distinguishing the enemy from non-combatants. Especially considering the human soldiers it's expected to emulate often have difficulty with it in modern warfare.

Originally Posted by sperry

As far as the "nothing extremely difficult" when it comes to autonomous vehicles... it's actually *extremely* difficult. What we've achieved is essentially a robot that can follow a map. In the 50 years or so we've been working on it, all we've come up with is "when you get to point X, turn left". Autonomous aircraft have the advantage of being able to employ canned routines (like a pre-programed anti-aircraft avoidance manuver), which make them look smart, but if they were placed up against a capable human opponent, they'd get whupped... ever play a video game?

The real reason that the Air Force is so interested in autonomous/remote piloted aircraft (aside from the aformentioned economic savings) is because we've just about reached the limits of human anatomy w/ regards to g-force. A remote/robot pilot can pull 20+ G's w/o breaking a sweat, while human pilots have about a limit of 9, and only for brief manuvers. An aircraft w/o a pilot can make up for it's lack of smarts by simply being so rediculously manuverable it's impossible to shoot down with current technology.

Unmanned aircraft and unmanned ground vehicles have much different circumstances affecting their ability to succed. You just pointed out why unmanned recon and attack aircraft are feasible- all that needs to be done is to create an aircraft that is agile enough and fast enough. If we make a plane that has a higher top speed than enemy manned fighter craft, all it has to do is pull 1, maybe 2 high-G maneuvers its opponent can't match, then boogie out of range. Creating such an aircraft that could avoid being destroyed even 90% of the time is probably well within the parameters of current technology. It would probably not be as successful at attacking targets, but it would be 100% successful in destroying enemy targets with zero human casualties, and probably at economic savings as well, at least in terms of operational costs, though perhaps not in developmental cost. Ground units do not have this advantage. If one combat group cannot kill the enemy combat group it comes into contact with, it usually dies.

While DARPA is demonstrating that AI drivers are potentially feasible, you'd still need human soldiers to defend the convoy at a minimum. So, why bother spending billions developing and deployingrobot drivers when the rifleman who has to be there anyway can do it better with minimal training and cost from the military? There is a parallel to this- The last generation of Soviet tanks had mechanical loading systems for their main guns, so they had crews of 3 instead of 4 like the M1 and the T62. Problem is, developing and building the simple system to move shells from one place to another 3 feet apart cost more than training another tank crewman for each tank, and is far less reliable. It also can't fire a rifle, or replace the driver or gunner of another tank if necessary the way the 4th crewman the US uses can. Also f it breaks, there's nobody there to load, and you can't hardly do it anyway because the broken stuff is in the way. I've seen the system General Dynamics developed to put in the M1 before the project was fully approved, and the Army was wise to decline to use it.

Reliability probably wouldn't be an issue with AI driver systems- the computer systems currently in use for communications and navigation in most combat line-unit vehicles are pretty bulletprof, both literally and figuratively. But it still can't kill the enemy.

Originally Posted by sperry

Finally, back to the Darpa project, there are some really good things that can come from this contest, outside of the military application. Besides just the experience with complex problem solving AI, I see this stuff ending up in the space program for remote rovers where the transmission delay is so long they have to drive themselves. Then the next step is AI for non-military vehicles... MattR and qksubi are gonna be outta work when robots are driving trucks and trains. And eventually I look forward to being able to get into my car for a long trip and just kicking back as the onboard computer drives me to Vegas at 180mph. I enjoy driving, but not for a long distance or in a straight line. The only problem is that we're probably another 50 years away from that sort of stuff... hell back in the 60's people assumed we'd have flying autonomous cars by 2000... when it comes to AI, people tend to drastically underestimate how difficult it actually is.

Absolutely. Darpa kicks ass, even though I'm on that unemployment list too if such technology came to fruition. It just has very limited potential application for the military, unlike most new technologies of the last 200 years. Yay for civilization, we're finally making new ideas into good things that aren't very useful for killing each other.

[sperry]

I wasn't suggesting that a robot-only supply convoy would be a good idea. I was suggesting that robot drivers for the *supply trucks* would be cost effective and take people out of the line of fire. The convoy would still have to be protected by capable people, since I feel we're a *long* way away from AI that could handle the job.

As far as the cost of developing the robot drivers... well, that's what programs like this DARPA challenger are all about. By having civillians compete for prize money, the government is effectively running tens of research programs for the fixed cost of the prize money. Development isn't cheap, but once the system is designed, it will be *far* cheaper than soldiers.

Back to the autonomous aircraft... we're still a long way away from a useful robot fighter aircraft. Sure we've got the hardware, but the software is the key obstacle to overcome. AI is an intensely difficult thing to program, and even harder to test. We'll have remotely piloted aircraft for a long time before we have AI piloted aircraft that can match 'em. Like I said, we've basically gotten to the point of being able to have a robot that can follow a map. Add obstacle avoidance, and you've got what you need for that robot supply truck, but you're nowhere near something that can out-fight a human pilot.

[Dean]

Great article in Wired on the winning team, and how they taught a car to drive...Uh... Let it learn on it's own...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/stanley.html