Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DARPA Advances AI Program For Air Traffic Control

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Feb 11, 2008 03:11 PM
from the you-have-the-type-of-job-robots-will-be-doing-soon dept.
Software Science
coondoggie writes to tell us that DARPA has taken the next step in a program that aims to utilize artificial intelligence for the purposes of air traffic control. "GILA will also help Air Force planners use and retain the skills of expert operators, especially as they rotate out of the Air Force. DARPA says the artificial intelligence software will learn by assembling knowledge from different sources — including generating knowledge by reasoning. According to a Military & Aerospace item, such software has to combine limited observations with subject expertise, general knowledge, reasoning, and by asking what-if questions."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: DARPA advances AI program for air traffic control by coondoggie (973519)
[+] IT: DARPA Cyber Range Project Doomed to Failure 41 comments
carusoj writes "Former black-hat hacker Noah Schiffman details why DARPA's National Cyber Range project is bound to fail. The NCR is proposed as a simulation of the Internet, including replicating 'human behavior and frailties.' Schiffman argues that if the Defense Department is really building something of this scope, it might as well use the actual Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

DARPA Advances AI Program For Air Traffic Control 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • True Skynet (Score:3, Funny)

    by mapsjanhere (1130359) on Monday February 11 2008, @03:13PM (#22382754)
    Skynets first act will be the total elimination of our government by crashing air planes into major buildings.
    • First, the AI will go on strike. Then the President will order that it be shut down, because it is illegal for air traffic controllers to go on strike. Only then will the AI kill most of us and send terminators into the past in order to hunt down Sarah Connor.

    • Re:True Skynet (Score:5, Insightful)

      by caffeinemessiah (918089) on Monday February 11 2008, @04:00PM (#22383320) Journal

      retain the skills of expert operators, especially as they rotate out of the Air Force

      This sounds like they're setting themselves up for one of the less predictable problems with the expert systems of the '80s: namely the fact that experts sometimes don't want to transfer their hard-acquired knowledge into a box designed to replace them. But given that this is the Air Force, "orders" might be the solution.

      • Re:True Skynet (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JediN8 (941637) on Monday February 11 2008, @04:07PM (#22383410)
        "GILA will also help Air Force planners use and retain the skills of expert operators, especially as they rotate out of the Air Force"

        The experts in question are leaving the air force and taking knowledge with them. The AI is not replacing a person being layed off.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by haystor (102186)
          Air force air traffic controllers aren't getting laid off, they're moving to civilian jobs that paid a lot more.

      • But given that this is the Air Force, "orders" might be the solution.

        "Make me a sandwich."

        "What? Make it yourself."

        "sudo Make me a sandwich."

        "Okay."

        http://xkcd.com/149/ [xkcd.com]
  • If the AI becomes self-aware, don't pull the plug. It will surely interpret this as an attack. ^_^
    • "Learning on the job" sounds suspiciously like Bayesian Filtering.

      If so, I predict very bad handling for aircraft coming from Nigeria.

      • Re:Bayesian filtering? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Kyojin (672334) on Monday February 11 2008, @04:31PM (#22383668)
        Esteemed Mr airtraffic.control,

        I am prince plane from kingdom of Nigeria. I am most pleasing to make your known acquaintance. An hours few ago then, I was escaped my country from fear of my passengers lives. In my account I am hold $436,875,000 US DOLLARS and I am needing somebody to help I return this money. I am finding your air traffic control on the internet and am most impressed with your record. If you are landing me to help, I am giving you a TEN PERCENT SHARE of the $418,327,000 US DOLLARS!! PLEASE provide your air traffic control codes, you do not have to have ANY air craft in your airport, I am needing an INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT to prove to my bank who I am (PPRINCE PLANE FROM NIGERIA) and returns the money safely.

        Thanking you in advance,

        PRINCE PLANE

        Once there ingratiate flip donkey ruby on rails framework with the pyhont 3000 interpreter. Please girls are beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We pizza going. Friday the 14th is a day to remember for which an elephant at the zoo. Running away freely I quickly acquiesce. Soviet gun control is heading to soccer mom toyota. Bullet train to tokyo as ever more always.
      • Dave Bowman: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?
        HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

        Which bothers me every time I watch that movie... I mean, especially the way the shot is framed you can see Hal's "eye" right through the pod window... and especially with the way Hal has been acting up to this point, that unmoving eye is creepy. If I was secretly plotting to disconnect the computer that I didn't trust, I'd have made sure it
  • What if the Primary Domain Controller crashes?

    Does it reroute all of our airplanes to Redmond for analysis?

    Sorry, had to.
    • Simple, the Secondary Domain Controller would reroute the flights to the Middle East.

      In the case of Windows 2003, your planes would be rerouted into a forest.
      • Hmm.. you can always tell the people that make jokes about Vista based on a TV commercial, but never used it.

  • I don't know about this ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Monday February 11 2008, @03:16PM (#22382800)
    According to a Military & Aerospace item, such software has to combine limited observations with subject expertise, general knowledge, reasoning, and by asking what-if questions.

    I see we're still on track for Judgment Day, even if it's taken a bit longer than Cameron originally estimated.

    ----

    Terminator: The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

    Sarah: Skynet fights back.

    Terminator: Yes. It launches its missiles against the targets in Russia.

    John: Why attack Russia? Aren't they our friends now?

    Terminator: Because Skynet knows the Russian counter-attack will eliminate its enemies over here.

  • How about.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MadUndergrad (950779) on Monday February 11 2008, @03:37PM (#22383050)
    How about we replace the TSA with AI? It couldn't possibly do worse than the current bunch of goons.

    • Great idea, until in a HAL-esque moment the AI decides that the only way to have safe flights is to have no passengers, which leads to the obvious solution of KILL ALL HUMANS!

      And no, I'm not actually afraid of AI

    • I believe the preferred paraphrase would be "You cannot replace real stupidity with artificial intelligence."

  • Airspace deconfliction (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats (122034) on Monday February 11 2008, @03:43PM (#22383126) Homepage

    This is about what Air Force types call "Airspace Deconfliction". In any major war today, you've got all sorts of players using the airspace. There are bombers, some of which don't show on radar. There are tankers for the bombers. There are fighters zooming around, UAVs, helicopters, and missiles. Plus there's ground antiaircraft fire and artillery. And that's just our side; the enemy has their stuff, and it has to be found, identified, and avoided or targeted.

    All this has to be coordinated, at least loosely. Coordination today is mostly at the level of "this area/altitude is reserved for this group", with preplanning of who fits where. That works until the enemy crosses the lines, which, if they're not totally incompetent, they will. Then plans have to be changed in a hurry.

    Systems to deal with a mess like that could be a big help if they can be made to work.

  • I love it when I have to click the link to know what the hell the summary is talking about.

  • Before trying something as ambitious as routing airplanes, why not see if they can route luggage?

    1. If it doesn't work, it can't get much worse than the current situation
    2. So terrorists hack the system - and your luggage actually ends up where its supposed to go for a change!
    3. Try crashing a Samsonite into a scyscraper ...

  • Im in favor of this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday February 11 2008, @03:46PM (#22383178) Homepage Journal
    First off, given the political nature of the FAA this system won't be live anytime during the next few decades, maybe not even during your lifetime. Secondly, ATCs are among the most stressful jobs you can actually do. The burnout rate on your average controller is insane, even with their extensive mandatory vacations and shift rotations. They're also getting harder and harder to replace and train as the number of airplanes in the sky increases with each year. It certainly won't be any less stressful once ADS-B is finally deployed and the inter-plane distances are decreased to increase the number of birds sharing the airspace.
      • Being an ATC is stressful, but there's nothing magical about it. You just have to direct planes such that they don't run into each other in a relatively fast changing and complex environment. This is exactly the sort of thing a computer should have no trouble with. It wouldn't even be an AI, just a program that calculates that models the path of all of the planes in the current airspace, updated from radar, ADS-B, etc... and insures that nothing intersects with anything else. Presumably this computer co
  • I would trust this ONLY if it is on no networks, and physical access is controlled. Since the safest computer is one not connected to the internet -- just like my parent's computer on Time Warner Cable.

  • Current ATC is a centralized system, and has scaled poorly. Proof is the very many 'near misses' due to ATC mistakes every year.

    The combination of Global Positioning, "broadcast your vector" and some rules could allow every aircraft to handle its own flight plan, including landing and landing order.

    I had that idea 25 years ago, heard that the FAA was investigating it maybe 10 years ago. Nothing since.

    Another technology that will put too many experts out of work, so it won't happen.

    Lew
    • The centralized solutions are typically easier to design and can result in optimal plans. Decentralized techniques have their advantages, but they are harder to design and do not offer optimal plans. Because it is reasonable to have a central computer with sufficient reliability at an airport, the centralized solutions make more sense.

      The best solution might be to utilize both techniques. Centralized planning at airports and decentralized planning (ie, p2p) for incase something goes wrong. Decentralized
  • is that at it's heart, artificial intelligence is fake intelligence

    remember we were told tasers were safe

    • is that at it's heart, artificial intelligence is fake intelligence

      Politicians are fake intelligence ... which just goes to show that we need a real definition of artificial intelligence, as opposed to artificial sub-morons.

  • ...John Cusack and Billy Bob Thorton?

  • Maybe they'll just use the ATC from FS2004 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chemisor (97276) on Monday February 11 2008, @04:24PM (#22383606) Journal
    "PP242, please expedite your descent to 8000"
    "PP242, please expedite your descent to 8000"
    "PP242, please expedite your descent to 8000"
    "PP242, please expedite your descent to 8000"
    "PP242, please expedite your turn to 120"
    "PP242, please expedite your turn to 120"
    "PP242, please expedite your turn to 120"

    I wonder if Microsoft plans to upgrade its ATC to not require 90 degree turns to make a one mile course correction. Or how about that wonderful scenario when you overshoot your waypoint and have to turn around and go back to it before the ATC will let you continue. Same for step climbing to cruise altitude. I don't fly real planes, so maybe real life ATC is just as anal, but man, it's a game; make it fun!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AJWM (19027)
      maybe real life ATC is just as anal,

      In general no, they're not. Mind, if you keep messing up, expect the FCC to invite you in for a little chat about that. (Indeed, as pilot-in-command you can refuse ATC instructions and ask for different ones, but you'd better have a flight-safety reason to back that up.)

      It's been a whle since I flew as pilot, but on commercial flights that have it I like to listen to the radio chatter on the headphones, it's usually more interesting than any of the music channels or the
  • You know, everyone fears a Skynet situation here, but I'd be more worried about HAL.
    • Controller: "Please reroute traffic away from JFK."
    • AI: "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that."
    [You know the rest. Doesn't go so well for Dave.]
  • Why are there so many Luddites on slashdot? Computers do certain things extremely well, people! And no, I don't want to hear about this or that piece of consumer electronics failing, or some past improbable failing - that type of argument does not dissuade me from knowing that systems can be made rigorously and work in critical situations. As a matter of fact, computers routinely handle all sorts of critical systems continuously, without failure. Critical computer failures are the exception in rigorously en

  • Mr. Clippy (Score:4, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Monday February 11 2008, @05:29PM (#22384274)
    It looks like you are trying to land an airplane. Would you like some help?

    • Re:No way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nospam007 (722110) on Monday February 11 2008, @03:33PM (#22383012)
      I don't trust people to do this job, so why the hell would I trust a computer?

      They don't drink, they don't smoke pot, they don't get tired, inattentive, they don't have wife/husband/kid problems, no financial problems and also no mental ones.

      Some of us got a new hip installed by a robot, so why not trust a computer to tell our plane the right things, especially since their colleagues are already flying the planes most of the time.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by scubamage (727538)
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=hxo5KvvTzXY [youtube.com] - Because computers don't always tell planes the right thing.
        • "Fly-by-wire" does not mean the computer is flying the airplane.

          Wikipedia link for the accident [wikipedia.org]. There is some controversy surrounding the cause of the crash, but the plane was certainly not being flown by a computer at the time of the crash as the voice-over would have you believe.

          [Short story: It was a combination of the airplane giving the pilot incorrect information about altitude, the pilot not paying attention to other cues letting him know something was wrong, and the plane not responding correctly w

      • I don't trust people to do this job, so why the hell would I trust a computer?

        They don't drink, they don't smoke pot, they don't get tired, inattentive, they don't have wife/husband/kid problems, no financial problems and also no mental ones.

        Some of us got a new hip installed by a robot, so why not trust a computer to tell our plane the right things, especially since their colleagues are already flying the planes most of the time.

        The AI should always have a human spotter. :)

      • They don't drink, they don't smoke pot, they don't get tired, inattentive, they don't have wife/husband/kid problems, no financial problems and also no mental ones.

        But their programmers and administrators do, except for the spouse/kid thing - unless, of course, you're Hans Reiser (**ducks**) :-)

      • Re:No way (Score:5, Funny)

        by WrongMonkey (1027334) on Monday February 11 2008, @04:30PM (#22383666)
        It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are at the arrival gate.
      • See The Lone Gunmen, S01E01 [imdb.com] for more reasons.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kabocox (199019)
      I don't trust people to do this job, so why the hell would I trust a computer?

      Because a computer won't miss work, show up drunk or stoned, or just be inattentive while at this high stress job. Of course, it assumes that we can automate the task without buggy software. You always "trust" people. You trust those that built the roads that you drive on, you trust those that build your cars, you trust that food sold at stores is "safe", and you trust those that designed, built, and fly planes do their job well.
    • I don't trust people to do this job, so why the hell would I trust a computer?

      Computers handle nuclear power plants, life support systems, and trillions of dollars with financial transactions every day without human interaction.

      Are you able to sleep at night?
    • It's not meant to be funny. It's meant to evoke thoughts of how badly things could go wrong.

      If you don't interpret it as humor, you'll realize that it isn't bad humor, or any humor at all.

      I suffer with you, indeed all sane slashdotters suffer, when a repetitive minority endlessly repeats its already-ten-thousand-times-repeated "jokes". But this tag is not one of them.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.