[daniel-s]

Learning that is difficult. It is a skill that needs to be worked on by learning maths, then control, dynamics. Instead, learn to use an AI framework and you can solve the problem with orders of magnitude more computing.

Not advocating one way or another, just that that's probably the thinking. Also, it's in vogue.

[anonylizard]

Its far easier to stuff 8 H100s in a submarine than to add another headcount.

Every person in a submarine consumes valuable space/food/oxygen. Cooling and electricity on the other hand are easy to solve, when you have a nuclear reactor and a dead cold ocean right outside.

So if possible, AI will be used to perform these duties.

[jprete]

Inertial navigation is a sealed box and doesn't require more headcount than the H100s.

[nine_k]

In the outer space, yes; you can compute orbits for millennia to come. In the ocean, with its currents, it's way less easy.

[progbits]

I don't think you understand, inertial navigation is not computing (as in predicting) anything. It is a bunch of sensors to measure where you are.

Using AI to predict where you might be based on crappy cheap sensor data and ocean simulations is never going to be precise enough. AI can't pull signal out of noise and uncertainty.

[TeMPOraL]

> Using AI to predict where you might be based on crappy cheap sensor data and ocean simulations is never going to be precise enough. AI can't pull signal out of noise and uncertainty.

Yeah, but people with monies see this as "AI can help replace expensive milspec hardware with cheap COTS garbage plus some software magic pixie dust, for approximately the same effect [during peace time, in harbor]".

[hef19898]

And there will always be low tech, self contained back up systems in place. And I was not aware that current military subs had problems with navigation that require AI to solve, or issues with life support.

[hhh]

GPU clusters already exist on them.