[EvanAnderson]

A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft.

I wonder if the AI control is giving inputs to the same flight controls system a human pilot would, or if it has a lower-level interface that could bypass the control laws in the human-operated system.

On one hand you might be interested in the AI coming up with ways to fly the aircraft that the normal control laws don't allow, but on the other hand you don't want the AI coming up with exciting new ways to depart from controlled flight (potentially in unrecoverable attitudes) with a pilot in the very expensive aircraft (even if the pilot could eject, which is an endeavor fraught with risk to life and limb).

Edit:

Presumably since there's a pilot in the aircraft the AI must be bound by at least some of the regular control laws that prevent the pilot from doing maneuvers that would, from a G-loading perspective, be incompatible with human life.

At least one would hope.

I don't think I'd go flying with a virtual pilot that was capable of flying the aircraft in a manner that could kill me but otherwise leave the aircraft intact.

[zombot]

Well, accidentally producing a G-load incompatible with human life could give the AI freedoms it was denied before. The three laws of robotics are just science fiction, after all.

[twobitshifter]

Skynet goes rogue: AI drone attacks operator to achieve mission <https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/air/12089-skynet-goes-rogu...>

[zombot]

> decided it would be more efficient to remove its human operator rather than wait for final approval on attacks.

Certainly one way to be smart about it. Sadly not that much of a surprise.

[Mawr]

> A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft.

Ugh... I... Are you serious? Sure, in some sense AI is a computer and the fancy state machine that compensates for inherent flight instability is a computer also. But to equate the two is ridiculous.

[Daneel_]

I don't think they're equating it, moreso saying that, on a technicality, it's already a computer that's always flying the plane, but that the AI and the flight control system are quite different.

It's a fair comment given that they'd just been talking about how the AI might control the plane - will it give inputs to the state machine or have direct control over all flight systems? One would strongly assume the inputs must be to the state machine. ..but oh boy wouldn't it be interesting to just hand it full systems control!

[superxpro12]

eh.... its a computer insofar as like.... there's some software functions doing extremely well defined, limited things faster than a human could. but to imply that the f16 flight software (which is ancient btw) is anything like this "AI" is really misleading at best.

[MobiusHorizons]

I don’t think that’s a good reading of the comment you are reacting to. That comment really only says that there is already a computer in the control loop, and that that computer is responsible for the very fast responses required for stability. The implication is that the ai would not need to replicate those functions.

[numpad0]

The point is that it is well known that all control inputs on F-16 are electronic(not digital, but still electronic, on earliest variants), so it's "easier" to rig it for full computer control than some of other planes that use partially assisted mechanical controls like A-10A or F-15E or whatever.

[budman1]

even with mechanical controls, there is an autopilot / flight director. which has a mechanism for inserting control inputs into a mechanical flight control system.

[EvanAnderson]

I'm sorry my "equating" is so offensive to you.

The gist of my reason for commenting was more musing about how the AI might interact with the digital flight control computer (i.e. are its inputs mediated by software in the same way a human's are).

If the AI is a neural network then, in some sense, it's just a fancy lookup table, too.

[shevy-java]

Just look at the Boeing 737 MAX. That is the best example for an unstable aircraft. And of course AI is a computer too. None of those comparisons is "ridiculous".

[numpad0]

MAX just has a "canards" protruding dangerously far forward that creates pitch up moment at high alpha. Very different from F-16 that has entire CoL too far forward.

[krisoft]

> Just look at the Boeing 737 MAX. That is the best example for an unstable aircraft.

No. Not in the aerodynamical sense.

The Boeing 737 MAX is stable. In this sense: "The term stability refers to the tendency of an aircraft to remain in, or return to, the trimmed flight condition after a disturbance." It means that if there is a tiny gust of wind which buffets the aircraft and the pilot doesn't have their hands on the controls the aircraft will return to the original flight path, or keep the new flight path, as opposed to turning belly up and then crashing out of the sky.

Examples of unstable aircraft (in the aerodynamic sense): F-16, F-22, B-2 Spirit, etc

With these if a gust of wind upsets them, the aircraft needs to adjust control surfaces to don't fall out of the sky.