...or why shaky solutions are superior to perfect ones.An anon rebutted my suggestion that cold air turbulence could cause a certain refueller collision with a few points but the thread was archived before I could respond and I think this is interesting to AI weapon autists like myself.>>64969842>It's much more likely that it was night and they were flying the same ground track in opposite directions at the same altitude (whoopsie!). GPS+INS+autopilot keeps them within a few dozen yards of the same centerline while altimetry error results in one being a few feet higher than the other. ~800 knots of closure shears a wingtip off one aircraft and the stab tip off the other.I concede that point I guess, I'm no expert on turbulence or in-flight refuelling (more than the average normie but not on this board where the bar is higher) but I was struck by anon's point about the same flight route being used for repeated operations causing a scheduling error to cause a collision.My expertise is in agent systems, I've long held the view that rigid AIs were unreliable and error prone to traps, dead-ends and loops when encountering environmental obstacles even slightly outside their domain knowledge.My solution was always to include a stochastic element to every decision where 1-2% of the time, they'd make the wrong choice.If two robotic agents were trying to use a restricted passage at the same time, reliable agents stuck in a loop bashing heads and chaotic ones can do something random instead, inadvertently yielding the passage to the other robot and ensuring they can get through next.In tournaments in my masters program, my agents using this kind of chaotic error were far more successful than naively perfectly rational agents they faced.I think autopilots should reduce the accuracy of their navigation for roughly this reason. Two planes flying the same route a few hundred metres apart is scary but two planes flying the same route with cm accuracy is fatal.
>>64970557>flying the same ground track in opposite directions at the same altitude (whoopsie!).Oh, that's unlikely to have been their correct route.Even I know that opposite directions are supposed to have alternating flight levels.One of the tankers was at the wrong altitude.
>>64970557fucking retard
>>64970562
>>64970557>My solution was always to include a stochastic element to every decision where 1-2% of the time, they'd make the wrong choice.Good point. Cant wait for my next flight to have 2% chance to crash.Least the tickets will be cheap.
>>64970560IAFDOF deez nuts
You're a god damn idiot.No I will not elaborate.
>>64970557>i'd rather design a system that stochastically fails sometimes without any chance of reproducing the error instead of actually solving the problem so it works 100% of the timeYou're a fucking idiot. Software is not inherently flaky, you've just never worked on anything that wasn't pure slop.
>>64971580How many birds do you see falling out of the sky?
>>64971814Yet nature is, and it did not evolve to be perfect.