this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
368 points (94.0% liked)

Technology

59608 readers
4600 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 60 points 8 months ago (6 children)

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

[–] Sciaphobia@lemm.ee 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What's that from? The Simpsons?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The Secret War of Lisa Simpson, Season 8, Episode 25. First aired in 1997.

Clip. Voiced by Willem Dafoe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes. I’m a man of few words.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago

I think they are perfectly cromulent words.

[–] Peanutbjelly@sopuli.xyz 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps instead we could just restructure our epistemically confabulated reality in a way that doesn't inevitably lead to unnecessary conflict due to diverging models that haven't grown the necessary priors to peacefully allow comprehension and the ability exist simultaneously.

breath

We are finally coming to comprehend how our brains work, and how intelligent systems generally work at any scale, in any ecosystem. Subconsciously enacted social systems included.

We're seeing developments that make me extremely optimistic, even if everything else is currently on fire. We just need a few more years without self focused turds blowing up the world.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

We are finally coming to comprehend how our brains work, and how intelligent systems generally work at any scale, in any ecosystem.

Who told you that?

(If you don't mean ML-based things fallaciously called "AI", then ignore this)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 8 months ago (12 children)

robots, satellites, or for that matter fighter jets or artillery can't hold ground, all these units work in support of infantry. the future belongs to what we already have: combined arms warfare

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 58 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Can we please just fight all of our wars on the moon with giant robots like God intended?

[–] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Not as things stand from a treaty standpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

The Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is a multilateral treaty that forms the basis of international space law. Negotiated and drafted under the auspices of the United Nations, it was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on 27 January 1967, entering into force on 10 October 1967.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty_of_1967

Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manœuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Well, Russia hasn't actually violated it yet. We just have intelligence that it was being considered.

If the treaty breaks down, then, yeah, maybe we could see war on the Moon in the future.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 40 points 8 months ago (34 children)

Drones currently outpace their countermeasurs. This will definitely not be a thing forever. I think the effectiveness of cheap drones will go down as be countermeasures are invented.

We already see new very effective military drone jammers starting to come out

[–] eleitl@lemmy.ml 13 points 8 months ago (23 children)

Onboard AI guidance is not difficult.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] perestroika@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Both of you are right.

It's difficult, but how difficult depends on the task you set. If the task is "maintain manually initiated target lock on a clearly defined object on an empty field, despite the communications link breaking for 10 seconds" -> it is "give a team of coders half a year" difficult. It's been solved before, the solution just needs re-inventing and porting to a different platform.

If it's "identify whether an object is military, whether it is frienly or hostile, consider if it's worth attacking, and attack a camouflaged target in a dense forest", then it's currently not worth trying.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

I saw a YouTube clip explaining that they use a secondary drone to boost the signal to get around some of the jamming.

The game of cat and mouse continues.

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Western countries have been slow to absorb these lessons. Simple and cheap weapons will not replace big, high-end platforms, but they will complement them. The Pentagon is belatedly embarking on Replicator, an initiative to build thousands of low-cost drones and munitions able to take on China’s enormous forces. Europe is even further behind. Its ministers and generals increasingly believe that they could face another major European war by the end of the decade. If so, investment in low-end drones needs to grow urgently. Moreover, ubiquitous drones will require ubiquitous defences—not just on battlefields but also in cities at peace.

I think that any war determined by who can churn out more low-end drones is going to be dominated by China, given their overwhelming share of the consumer market. Consumer drones are made there because China has comparative advantage.

That will only change if the basic methods of manufacture change, like, production is far more heavily automated. And even then, it's not clear to me that China has a disadvantage in industrial automation.

I think a more-interesting technology question is who has better counters to low-end drones. There, I can imagine room for a technological advantage. As things stand today, though, we really don't have a compelling answer, and we probably should have come up with one by now.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

These flying IEDs can be defeated with some simple radio jamming. They will fall out of the sky without a remote control signal.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 months ago

AI guidance does not rely on remote.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (16 children)

So, I haven't played with them, but even commercial, off-the-shelf DJI consumer drones have the ability to return to some location if they lose link, so they're gonna have at least GPS in there. You can jam that, but they've got accelerometers, and you can't jam that. They shouldn't drop out of the sky even if you can manage to jam things.

It looks like DJI drones have frequency-hopping spread spectrum support, too. So you have to jam all frequencies that they're using, since you don't know which they're using at any given instant. For consumer hardware, it probably doesn't matter much -- nobody is jamming you, so you sit in your little assigned piece of spectrum, have a handful of channels -- but in a war, you can probably expand the frequencies you use, use a huge chunk of the spectrum, if need be.

There are also some forms of jam resistance that AFAIK are not being exploited -- beam-forming or directional antennas.

Both Russia and Ukraine have a pretty strong interest in using electronic warfare against drones, and the fact that both are still using a lot of them seems like a pretty good argument that they can't currently successfully stop them via electronic warfare.

And even if you can jam signal when it gets really close to the target, if you have a second drone watching -- which it looks like Ukraine and Russia often are, from the videos I see, maybe to do damage assessment -- you can probably stick a laser designator on those, if they haven't already, use it to guide the weaponized drone in.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Another quick off-the-cuff improvement: the drone feeds being sent today contain a lot of unnecessary information, more than is required for a human operator to guide them in. The less information that needs to make it through, and the more you can afford to cut out and use on redundancy in transmission, the more-jam-resistant the thing is. You can fall back to a unreliable-channel mode if need be for the last bit of the approach.

Here's a satellite source image. That's lossily-compressed, JPEG, at 510,254 bytes. It's pretty, but if you already know what you're looking at and are trying to just ram it, you don't need anything like that much information.

Here's the same image after I've run a Laplace edge-detection on it, denoised it, run a threshold on it (you could probably use a simple heuristic to select the threshold, but even if not, it'd be fine for the operator to manually choose a threshold), converted it to 1-bit, and then PNG-compressed it. That resulting frame is enough to keep identifying the objects in the image, enough that if you could see that frame, an operator could hold it on-target, and it's only 30,343 bytes, about 6% the size.

Then you can use the newly-free bandwidth to send forward error correction information -- some folks here may have used it in the form of PAR2, popular in the piracy scene -- so that if any N% of the data makes it through, the frame can be reassembled. Now it's a lot harder to jam.

And that's an off-the-cuff approach that took me about 2 minutes just using the tools that I have on my system (GIMP and PAR2) and zero time trying to improve on it. You figure that if you pay someone who actually specializes in the area to bang on this a bit, you can probably get something rather better.

[–] tutus@links.hackliberty.org 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I have nothing to add here, I just wanted to say thank you for these interesting details. An upvote didn't feel like enough.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like a good idea. It also sounds like you know a few things about GIMP - are you subscribed to gimp@lemmy.world?

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hi there! It looks like you f*cked up a community link again. Here's a fixed version:

!gimp@lemmy.world

I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually. Have a wonderful day!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sturlabragason@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

Anyone have a non paywalled or more info on the subject? All signs point towards an impending global war and I’d like to be as prepared as possible.

[–] tapdattl@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

PRECISION-GUIDED weapons first appeared in their modern form on the battlefield in Vietnam a little over 50 years ago. As armed forces have strived ever since for accuracy and destructiveness, the cost of such weapons has soared. America’s gps-guided artillery shells cost $100,000 a time. Because smart weapons are expensive, they are scarce. That is why European countries ran out of them in Libya in 2011. Israel, more eager to conserve its stockpiles than avoid collateral damage, has rained dumb bombs on Gaza. What, though, if you could combine precision and abundance?

For the first time in the history of warfare that question is being answered on the battlefields of Ukraine. Our report this week shows how first-person view (FPV) drones are mushrooming along the front lines. They are small, cheap, explosives-laden aircraft adapted from consumer models, and they are making a soldier’s life even more dangerous. These drones slip into tank turrets or dugouts. They loiter and pursue their quarry before going for the kill. They are inflicting a heavy toll on infantry and armour.

The war is also making FPV drones and their maritime cousins ubiquitous. January saw 3,000 verified FPV drone strikes. This week Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, created the Unmanned Systems Force, dedicated to drone warfare. In 2024 Ukraine is on track to build 1m-2m drones. Astonishingly, that will match Ukraine’s reduced consumption of shells (which is down because Republicans in Congress are shamefully denying Ukraine the supplies it needs).

The drone is not a wonder weapon—no such thing exists. It matters because it embodies big trends in war: a shift towards small, cheap and disposable weapons; the increasing use of consumer technology; and the drift towards autonomy in battle. Because of these trends, drone technology will spread rapidly from armies to militias, terrorists and criminals. And it will improve not at the budget-cycle pace of the military-industrial complex, but with the break-things urgency of consumer electronics.

Basic FPV drones are revolutionarily simple. The descendants of racing quadcopters, built from off-the-shelf components, they can cost as little as several hundred dollars. FPV drones tend to have short ranges, carry small payloads and struggle in bad weather. For those reasons they will not (yet) replace artillery. But they can still do a lot of damage. In one week last autumn Ukrainian drones helped destroy 75 Russian tanks and 101 big guns, among much else. Russia has its own fpv drones, though they tend to target dugouts, trenches and soldiers. Drones help explain why both sides find it so hard to mount offensives.

The exponential growth in the number of Russian and Ukrainian drones points to a second trend. They are inspired by and adapted from widely available consumer technology. Not only in Ukraine but also in Myanmar, where rebels have routed government forces in recent days, volunteers can use 3D printers to make key components and assemble airframes in small workshops. Unfortunately, criminal groups and terrorists are unlikely to be far behind the militias.

This reflects a broad democratisation of precision weapons. In Yemen the Houthi rebel group has used cheap Iranian guidance kits to build anti-ship missiles that are posing a deadly threat to commercial vessels in the Red Sea. Iran itself has shown how an assortment of long-range strike drones and ballistic missiles can have a geopolitical effect that far outweighs their cost. Even if the kit needed to overcome anti-drone jamming greatly raises the cost of the weapons, as some predict, they will still count as transformationally cheap.

The reason goes back to consumer electronics, which propel innovation at a blistering pace as capabilities accumulate in every product cycle. That poses problems of ethics as well as obsolescence. There will not always be time to subject novel weapons to the testing that Western countries aim for in peacetime and that is required by the Geneva Conventions.

Innovation also leads to the last trend, autonomy. Today, fpv drone use is limited by the supply of skilled pilots and by the effects of jamming, which can sever the connection between a drone and its operator. To overcome these problems, Russia and Ukraine are experimenting with autonomous navigation and target recognition. Artificial intelligence has been available in consumer drones for years and is improving rapidly.

A degree of autonomy has existed on high-end munitions for years and on cruise missiles for decades. The novelty is that cheap microchips and software will let intelligence sit inside millions of low-end munitions that are saturating the battlefield. The side that masters autonomy at scale in Ukraine first could enjoy a temporary but decisive advantage in firepower—a necessary condition for any breakthrough.

Western countries have been slow to absorb these lessons. Simple and cheap weapons will not replace big, high-end platforms, but they will complement them. The Pentagon is belatedly embarking on Replicator, an initiative to build thousands of low-cost drones and munitions able to take on China’s enormous forces. Europe is even further behind. Its ministers and generals increasingly believe that they could face another major European war by the end of the decade. If so, investment in low-end drones needs to grow urgently. Moreover, ubiquitous drones will require ubiquitous defences—not just on battlefields but also in cities at peace. Kalashnikovs in the skies

Intelligent drones will also raise questions about how armies wage war and whether humans can control the battlefield. As drones multiply, self-co-ordinating swarms will become possible. Humans will struggle to monitor and understand their engagements, let alone authorise them.

America and its allies must prepare for a world in which rapidly improving military capabilities spread more quickly and more widely. As the skies over Ukraine fill with expendable weapons that marry precision and firepower, they serve as a warning. Mass-produced hunter-killer aircraft are already reshaping the balance between humans and technology in war. ■

[–] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 8 months ago

All signs point towards an impending global war

Like what?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Better brush up on my e-sports skillz, then.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Bombs strapped to remote controlled planes aren't the weapons of the future. The American military has fucking autonomous robot dogs that carry machine guns and have thermal imaging sensors.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I disagree. Ukrainian style suicide drones combined with autonomous robot dogs carrying guns with thermal sensors are the weapons of the future, and it is a horrifying future. Governments will absolutely use both.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I have accidentally seen far too many videos from !ukraine@sopuli.xyz to know that these things are fucking brutal.

Knowing full well that on a metric of pure numbers, these don't compare to other weapons of war, but there's something about the personal nature of these fuckers that are just so fucking soul-destroying.

Those videos are definitely NSFL (and are usually marked as such, in fairness), but most of them have zoomed-in, full-screen footage of the carnage they leave behind. They are mostly individual or 2-3 individuals hiding/cowering alone in a trench, blown to literal pieces and left dying, completely unaware that somewhere on the other end of that drone is an operator watching their final excruciating moments of life.

It is one thing to be operating a long-range artillery weapon, or a drone flying at several thousand feet firing long-range missiles, or being in a close-combat life-or-death situation, but it's a completely different experience watching a shell drop on a defenseless, terrified and cowering human (likely coerced into war or forcibly compelled to the front-line) as if you're 10 fucking feet above them, while yourself are completely out of immediate harm.

Fuck war, but especially fuck these drones in particular.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ShadowRam@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (12 children)

What sucks is that us hobbist's can't get FPV, motors, ESC's, or batteries at reasonable prices (if at all)

The reality of it, is this is short lived.

Anti-Air meant for small drones like this is coming and soon.

And it will shut these down quickly.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›