Palantir Wins US Army Contract For Battlefield AI - Slashdot

Posted by BeauHD

• ›

  We'll never know because it was done at a CIA black site in Lithuania.

  • Re:

    fighter combat
    guerrilla engagement
    desert warfare
    air-to-ground actions
    theaterwide tactical warfare
    theaterwide biotoxic and chemical warfare
    global thermonuclear war

• Some of the things this will be doing is learning to identify possible targets via possible reasons such as patterns in collections of past data surrounding enemies terrorists or combatants. So what they will do is deploy these in combat zones along with a lot of remote sensing such as camera drones etc. That data will be collected then correlated then the system gets trained on it.

  How will that work? When they then deploy it elsewhere the AI will give instant estimates of probability of danger, spotting and deciding much faster than a human can.

  Now if only there were a cheaper version gamers could buy and run on their game stations, and students could run re their food service.

  • Re:

    Well, the way to train a tactical AI is to have it run millions of games against millions of opponents who try all sorts of crazy tactics. So, you want your AI playing the opposition in tactical games, say, by covertly supporting gaming companies who sell videogames to the public...

    Wait, how do we know that they're not already doing that?

• • Re:

    Which company are you talking about? Palantir have had ML based products on offer for long before we started mocking ChatGPT. They've been using "AI" for nearly a decade. It was a big foundation of their digital twin products.

• for the military-industrial complex.

  • Re: Another great step forward

    Of the relatively free democratic rules-based world. Which I far far far prefer to have these weapons than the authoritarian diktat-run cults of personality.

    • Re:

      Autonomous machines are actually a bigger threat to us than them, and you can't stop either of us from having them. As the tech matures it gets less expensive and easier to implement - if you are smart and dedicated and put in the time, you can already build an autonomous swarm of drones that can aim and fire guns or drop grenades on targets of your choice... using off the shelf components.

      That's not such a big deal in a dictatorship when possession of the components can be easily outlawed for the general

• The war in Ukraine is relatively low intensity, and being supplied by many countries. By all accounts, it has made a huge dent in basic ammo stocks of the US. I recently read an assessment that said - in a serious war - the US would be out of basic supplies and ammunition within a week.

  Maybe, just maybe, instead of more vulnerable, high-tech boondoggles, the US military should concentrate on building up basic stocks and having reliable supply chains for them?

  • Re:

    "In a serious war"

    So, not a war against Russia then? Is the War in Ukraine not a serious war?

    • 1 hidden comment

    • Re:

      That sort of whiplash-generating cognitive dissonance is a hallmark of the propaganda-addled mind.

      In 2014, the line was Russia's not involved at all. It was mystery men coming over the border.

  • I recently read an assessment that said - in a serious war - the US would be out of basic supplies and ammunition within a week.

    Unless you read something I didn't, that was in reference to anti-ship missiles if war broke with China. That's all we have to neutralize their Navy. Unless this was a different article and referring to the current stockpiles.

    Maybe, just maybe, instead of more vulnerable, high-tech boondoggles, the US military should concentrate on building up basic stocks and having reliable supply chains for them?

    1) We did, but then peace broke out. Why bother keeping all those armament facilities up and running [wired.com] if you're not fighting World War II style for decades? Do you know the cost of keeping those things running?

    Besides, modern warfare is built around stand off attacks. You don't want hordes of people rushing forward to gain ground (as Russia is still doing). You want your troops as far back as possible and use long range weapons such as JDAM, converted bombs [politico.com] which now act similar to missiles, HIMARS, and a whole host of missile systems such as the British Storm Shadow [cnn.com] and similar French SCALP [reuters.com] to beat your opponent into submission while minimizing your exposure and losses. This is why Ukraine keeps asking for more and more long range missiles. They know where the ammo dumps, fuel storage, supply depots, repair facilities, ship berthing, and troop concentrations are, but they can't reach them. If they could take out these nodes, the war would be over.

    Look at how effective Ukraine has been sinking [theguardian.com] the Russian Black Sea Fleet using homemade sea drones. 25% of the fleet is gone, and Ukraine doesn't even have a Navy to speak of. All that damage has been done either by those sea drones, or, in a recent case, use of those British or French cruise missiles [newsweek.com]. If you can hit your target but they can't hit you, that's how you win.

    2) Republicans keep blocking bills to do just that. They keep whining about sending money to Ukraine, yet the money being allocated is going to American companies producing artillery shells [time.com], HIMARS rockets [reuters.com], vehicle parts suppliers, repair of equipment [twz.com], etc, and employing American workers. They don't want us to rearm because that would inconvenience their Russian partners.

    • 1 hidden comment

    • by gtall ( 79522 ) on Saturday March 09, 2024 @07:50AM (#64302117)

      More to the point, the Rs think of Putin as their comrade against "woke". Their priority is to keep that asshole in power and try to deflect from his inhumane actions. If that means selling out Ukraine, they are happy with that.

      • 2 hidden comments

      • by Slayer ( 6656 ) on Saturday March 09, 2024 @09:55AM (#64302265)

        What the R are really afraid of is showing the world, that anti-woke Russia would look pretty weak and decrepit in the face of "woke" western arms. Admitting that a Javelin (the name alone would make proud boys and bugaloos barf !) makes all these Russian Kornets look like obsolete junk from the last century, that Patriots can handle "unbeatable Russian hypersonic missiles", that lame old Bradleys turn "the mighty T-90" into scrap metal with ease, that "boring western logistics" can be more decisive in a war than "great Russian manliness", all this would really force some folks to reevaluate their world view - and this would probably be quite painful to their self-image.

        This is what we face here, and I have no easy solution to this dilemma...

      • • Zelenskyy had an American reporter he didn't like arrested and then killed.

          A) the person was arrested for spreading Russian propaganda and lies during a war [wikipedia.org]. B) the guy tried to flee the country so as not to pay for his crime. C) Zelensky didn't have him killed. The guy died of pneumonia while in custody.

          Zelenskyy has also banned other political parties

          He suspended parties linked to Russia [theguardian.com] who were supporting Russia. You'll note Russia wasn't happy with its stooges not being able to undermine the Ukrainian government and Medvedev even said the move would take Ukraine closer to the West. I.e. Russia was counting on these parties to sow dissent while it attacked Ukraine.

          the free press

          Nope. The press is still free in Ukraine, unlike in Russia. The only thing Ukraine has done is limit what the press can report on as far as the war and the military's activities. Standard procedure during war for any country Contrast that with Russia which outright bans anyone from saying anything negative about the staggering losses of men and materiel and will put in jail those who do, the inability of the ordinary citizen to protest the war or face jail, or pretty much anything related to a normal free and open press.

          and even a church.

          Correct. A Russian church. One which was collaborating with Russia in the war [theguardian.com]. Wouldn't you ban an institution helping your enemy?

          There is no "good" side there.

          Let's see. One country was minding its own business when its neighbor decided to violate every single treaty with that country [harvard.edu] and attack it. That same aggressor country then started murdering [wikipedia.org] and raping [newsweek.com] every chance [bbc.com] they got [cnn.com], attacks maternity [cnn.com] hospitals [cnn.com], deliberately attacks locations where civilians are located [apnews.com], even when clearly marked [cnn.com], wholesale destroys villages, towns, and cities, kidnaps people [bbc.com] and takes them out of the country, kidnaps children [bbc.com] and takes them out of the country to indoctrinate them [theguardian.com], and has outright stated the country they are attacking isn't even a real country [businessinsider.com] and had no right to exist [businessinsider.com].

          When you're done being stupid, lets us know.

          Read the rest of this comment...

          • Re:

            Well said.

        • Re:

          Yep that's a very Putin take on it, corroborated by literally no one other than Lira's father who has an axe to grind because his son died of pneumonia while in jail for literally attempting to skirt bail after he was let out by the very people you claim assassinated him.

          Yes my precious, lap up that propaganda.

          Literally every country in the history of countries (including the freedoms loving USA) has banned political parties showing strong sympathies to the enemy attacking them during a war.

          This isn't the U

    • Re:

      I think NATO militaries are also designed around air power. You achieve air supremacy with some very fancy fighter jets, and once that's done the enemy can no longer congregate much of anything at one location, and now the ground troops can focus on cleanup and your need for tanks and artillery isn't nearly as large.

      That's the big thing that makes arming Ukraine kinda tricky, those planes are really expensive and require a ton of training to use (even the ancient F16s were a big deal), so Ukraine is stuck r

      • Re:

        I think NATO militaries are also designed around air power.

        Correct. I kind of referenced that with the JDAM and other missiles, but you are correct. Air supremacy leads to the ability to destory your enemy in place while minimizing your losses.

        so Ukraine is stuck relying on weapon systems that were more of an afterthought for NATO.

        At this point, any weapon system Ukraine receives will still be better than what Russia has considering Russia's been bringing in upgraded T-55 tanks [taskandpurpose.com] and are now resorting to go [businessinsider.com]

        • Re:

          Agreed. It's basically a war of 2nd rate NATO stock vs 1980s USSR stock.

          Give Ukraine the ammo they need and the Russian forces will crumble.

  • Re:

    The Ukraine conflict is allowing us to replace our old-stock ammunition and equipment with new-stock and modernized gear.

    We send the old stuff overseas and order new stuff from manufacturers to replace it. Our military gets fresh supplies of munitions and new versions of equipment without having to scrap the old stuff.

    The supply chains are well established, and the profits are going to US manufacturers.

    Your FUD about the US running out of supplies is bullshit.

    • Re:

      Reply to myself to clarify:

      We order new stuff, and when it comes in, we send the old stuff overseas.

      The reason Ukraine is running low on supplies is that we will not deplete our reserves by sending out our old-stock until we have replacements. Not just ordered, but delivered.

• Look for the out of place vehicle surrounded by support vehicles.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  Also remember that superweapons did Hitler no good at all, nor did Super Duck fare particularly well.

• There is going to be no hiding a vehicle like this. It will be a brilliant in the infrared spectrum and easy to target. I wouldn't want to be anywhere close to this thing in a war. It is not likely to survive long, so what is the point of creating a vehicle like this?
• Hello
  
  A strange game.
  The only winnong move is not to play.
  
  Would you like to play a nice game of chess?