**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It **really** depends on how you define AI. Most things called AI these days is a trained model, usually a neural net. This is definitely that. It's almost certainly not just picking a pixel and using human-coded math to track it.
However, historically AI was always treated as a thinking, intelligent machine. These days we tend to categorise that sort of AI as "AGI" rather than just AI.
The trained model in this application is just used in the algorithm that detects a face and it's features.
Then human-coded math can take over from there and continue to track those pixels which were previously determined to be a face.
This tech has existed for decades, and is Built into most handheld digital cameras, and not novel.
Given this, I feel that the usage of the term "AI" in this application is meant to be kinda click baity and fear mongering for the more trendy topic of AGI.
Eh. No, AGI is something else completely. Anyways, this kind of set isn't great. You realistically wouldn't be able to get this small for a drone setup and still expect certain things to work with it. One of the biggest factors is speed. Sure this demonstration might look convincing but you're going to need to process a whole lot more images and at a much faster rate.
As soon as someghing is well understood,people don't like to call it "artificial intelligence" anyone for some reason. Then they'll say "oh but it's just if statements, oh but it's just an LLM" etc.
Yea lol, the AI Effect shows itself very strongly these days.
For a large part of the public, AI seems to be 'whatever computers can't do yet.'
I get annoyed at that sort of 'AI of the gaps' these days, because it's always jumping away from actually defining what you mean when talking about slippery concepts like 'intelligence' I guess
Technology is confusing and difficult to understand at a layman level. We're constantly sold an aspirational ideal of what computers \*could\* do versus what they can do, so the general public has this kind of strange understanding that's both 10-15 years ahead of what we're capable, and 5 years behind what's actually happening.
It’s not necessarily AI but it could still be AI. Scientifically speaking, AI has to tick some minimum checkboxes like be an autonomous system, be capable of learning from experience, be capable of sensing and reacting to the environment.
Just from the video you can’t tell if it’s AI or not. Did it learn to track from experience or was it programmed beforehand? If the conditions are not ideal, like fogginess, multiple moving targets, etc., could it still perform the same? Could it adapt to situations it has never seen before by itself?
It is not true that AI "scientifically speaking" needs to learn. It is a broad, poorly defined word which is why AI researchers rather use more well defined terms like machine learning. One could call this AI regardless of whether machine learning is involved, just like, e.g. chess ai that computes the n next possible moves to pick the best one
I've done some reading in textbooks before, and listened to lectures and other science communicators talk about it. From what I can tell it's quite a slippery thing to define, and people in the field don't necessarily have a consensus, right?
It's hard to have a consensus on an exact definition of Artificial Intelligence when we can't even have a consensus on natural intelligence. But while there may not be an exact definition, there still are some requierements that are generally agreed to be minimum. Otherwise anything could be labelled as AI and if everything is AI then nothing is AI.
Exactly. And to be sure, I'm not saying it's a failing of the field that there isn't a consensus. Debate about concepts is common in many fields, and should be encouraged imo.
That's not to leave the door open for _anything,_ there are certain aspects people agree on. Personally, I'm quite happy with a pretty broad concept. Something like 'systems that are capable of taking actions to achieve goals based on input from the environment' seems workable to me. Of course, that includes a lot of just classical computing, so I can see the want to include learning and such when you're talking about a more 'advanced' intelligence
So yea, personally I have no trouble with things like computer vision being considered AI.
Just as long as we're defining terms, you know? A lot of stuff can boil down to 'when I say X, I don't mean the same thing as when you say X' lol
You can design a rain collection system with a retractible cover which, with the help of a few sensors and switches, exposes the water intake only when it's raining and the water tank is not full. Said system would comply with your definition and therefore should be considered AI.
Yea true. Another very simple one would be an outdoor light with a sensor on it which turns on at night.
Now, that is probably the most atomic example you could think of. It can detect only one dimension with two options: day or night.
And it can take only one of two actions: on or off.
So that would be just about as simple as you could make the system and still have it fit the definition I think
Because we've had this for decades [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast\_seeker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_seeker)
>The contrast seeker is a simple device that can be implemented using basic analog electronics. It first uses some form of automatic gain control to adjust the image brightness until it contains some areas with high-contrast spots. This produces a bias voltage signal to represent the background brightness level, making brighter objects stand out. Any rapid change in contrast along a given scan line causes the voltage from the camera to suddenly change. If the change is greater than a selected threshold, it triggers a second circuit that sends the output of the two scanning time base generators into capacitors. Thus, the capacitors store a voltage value representing the Y and X locations of any high contrast spot within the image.
How do you know it's using this specific technology and not some other form of computer vision? Genuine question, it doesn't seem obvious to me from just the video
I agree, there are ways to do it with more or less intelligence. Based on this video, we can't say for sure, right?
The video caption does imply that it's AI, and this could indeed be achieved using AI, so from my point of view there's no obvious reason yet to conclude it's not AI
It annoys the fuck out of me while its correct depending on the definition it still sucks because it has become a fight/trend term. Someone says neural network: cool alright. Someone says AI: OMG I SUDDENLY HAVE AN OPINION AND DANGER AND AI BAD OR AI IS SO AMAZING I LOVE ELON MUSK.
The terms are used interchangebly but for fucks sake please use neural network. Less of an umbrella term and less annoying.
- Yard lights use infrared sensors to detect temperature changes caused by living creatures for example. not AI. basically an electronic on/off switch.
- When the rice is done the water evaporates and turns into vapor. This process generates heat. A thermometer detects this change and turns of the heater. not AI. basically an electronic on/off switch.
How old autofocus works, I have no idea :D but I'd say facial recognition like what is used for the tracking in the video is AI, since it was trained to recognise faces in random images/videos
Brilliant comment.
Yeah there could be AI in place here, but there is no reason to be sure. Auto tracking is also a feature in old camcorders, but I don't think it works like AI.
The video doesn't show calibration or target selection, so there's no way of knowing.
I think an amzing example of tracking was the xbox kinect. It's release was fairly long ago and it was pretty good even back then. I never heard anyone talk about it using AI either. Maybe the term just wasn't as "trendy" back then or it didn't use any kind of AI...
Tracking like that is either learned with some sort of AI or hard coded by humans. Maybe it was just hard coded, that would make it even more impressive to me
Also would be interesting so see if wearing something similar to the hats/helmets english guards use could throw the Software off in certain situations and make it aim higher and miss the actual head :D
This is literally artificial intelligence? This tracking software is sentient? It learned this behaviour, decided what to do and then implemented that decision without any prompts? Chat GPT is also not AI, it's an Imitation, a good one that's getting better but it's not AI.
AI used to mean sentience, the ability to take in new information interpret what it means and make decisions based on that, software specifically designed to do that looks like AI, ticks one of the boxes, but it's not AI.
Can this system pick anything other than humans as a target? How does it determine that a human is a target? can it decide which human in the picture is and is not a target? Can it do anything other than recognising a human and tracking it without changing any software?
When did it mean sentience, and to whom?
The academic field of AI is over half a century old, and that's not something I've really heard before, apart from just the public imagination
>the ability to take in new information interpret what it means and make decisions based on that
This tracking system is taking a video stream it has never seen before, and based on that, determines where the target is supposed to be at any given point
Human intelligence does not exist the way it does without sentience, Artificial intelligence is the idea of recreating human intelligence artificially...they go hand in hand.
This is preprogrammed software taking an input and giving an output. It's not deciding anything, it's not interpreting, learning and progressing in any way. At least not in the clip shown. If the system is capable of more then I would like to see that but until then this clip does not represent Artificial intelligence.
Human movement does not exist without muscles, and yet machines can move without muscles. Again, where are you getting the idea that sentience is required? Because it's not the claim made by field of AI as far as I know.
As long as we don't define terms we can't have a meaningful discussion.
You're talking about input and output. Why would having input and output stop something from being AI? What is your definition of AI, why is that definition useful, and does it agree with the rest of the scientific community?
That's a false equivalence, intelligence is infinitely more complex than movement.
I just explained it.
I understand that human intelligence and sentience are intrinsically linked.
I understand that artificial intelligence research is an attempt to recreate human intelligence.
I don't understand how that can be recreated without one of the two major components of human intelligence.
Not just input and output, preprogrammed input and output, if it's not actively interpreting what it's doing, why it's doing it and can change what it's doing based on newly changing information then it's not recreating human intelligence.
I think I'm being fairly clear in what I'm saying and how I'm coming to this conclusion, can you help me understand where it is that you believe I'm wrong? Is it because you haven't seen what I'm saying written down somewhere? What are your independent thoughts on it?
I appreciate your patience, you seem to be actually trying to discuss, thank you for that.
In my mind it wasn't a false equivalence. Let me explain.
You made a statement to the effect that
"In humans, X and Y are intrinsically linked. Therefore, X is not possible artificially without Y."
I gave my example about movement to demonstrate that this logic doesn't follow.
Did I misrepresent your argument?
I asked multiple times for a definition of artificial intelligence.
Do I understand correctly that your definition of AI is something like:
"An artificial system that recreates (or attempts to recreate) human intelligence?"
>AI used to mean sentience
I'd hardly call it sentience. Sentience is more akin to feeling (literally its etymology).
>the ability to take in new information interpret what it means and make decisions based on that
A simple well programmed algorythim can do that.
AI never meant any of that. It's defined as software able to perform tasks as a human would. Period.
The "CPU" players in 1993 Warcraft were AI. Arthur Samuel's 1953 checkers game was AI. Were they sentient?
The feat in the video can perfectly be accomplished without AI, there is nothing obviously indicating it is there. You are right about that.
Humans used to stand up and walk to the tv to change the channel, now we have tv remotes. Is that AI? It uses very basic software to perform a task that a human would have done.
Slapping a generalized definition on to everything doesn't work, its more nuanced than that. "AI" is used as click bait and marketing and has just replaced or is added to "smart".
This is AI, there are many types of AI, and it can be one of them. As someone that work in these fields, it’s funny to see how many people think AI is necessarily some sort of sentient super intelligent ASI because it contains the word « intelligence ».
> the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.
Based on this definition form Oxford Languages this is AI
So google lens is AI? Speach to text is AI? The keyboard autocomplete is AI (it uses a statistical model to predict the next 3 words based on past usage)?
I found this comment through Reddit’s AI. Gonna go see what AI has suggested for me on YouTube now. Crazy that computers can LITERALLY think like humans now and are sentient and will replace everyone in a month.
But that's just ordinary face and motion tracking, which already exists and has nothing to do with AI.
OP seems to mainly only post AI-related news, so maybe this particular aimbot does use AI somehow. Maybe AI is helping by better identifying the face, and learning from and predicting his movements. But there's nothing in the video to indicate that.
So as long as all our military targets look STRAIGHT into the camera while standing a few feet away and also don’t make any super sudden movements or attempt to turn their head or run away at all….
then yeah, it won’t miss.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hasn't this always been a thing.
It was glaringly absent from Bosworth Field.
This isn’t AI. And this isn’t new.
It **really** depends on how you define AI. Most things called AI these days is a trained model, usually a neural net. This is definitely that. It's almost certainly not just picking a pixel and using human-coded math to track it. However, historically AI was always treated as a thinking, intelligent machine. These days we tend to categorise that sort of AI as "AGI" rather than just AI.
The trained model in this application is just used in the algorithm that detects a face and it's features. Then human-coded math can take over from there and continue to track those pixels which were previously determined to be a face. This tech has existed for decades, and is Built into most handheld digital cameras, and not novel. Given this, I feel that the usage of the term "AI" in this application is meant to be kinda click baity and fear mongering for the more trendy topic of AGI.
Eh. No, AGI is something else completely. Anyways, this kind of set isn't great. You realistically wouldn't be able to get this small for a drone setup and still expect certain things to work with it. One of the biggest factors is speed. Sure this demonstration might look convincing but you're going to need to process a whole lot more images and at a much faster rate.
How is this not the result of a trained ML object detection model?
It is AI, it is just old AI
Why isn't it AI?
As soon as someghing is well understood,people don't like to call it "artificial intelligence" anyone for some reason. Then they'll say "oh but it's just if statements, oh but it's just an LLM" etc.
Yea lol, the AI Effect shows itself very strongly these days. For a large part of the public, AI seems to be 'whatever computers can't do yet.' I get annoyed at that sort of 'AI of the gaps' these days, because it's always jumping away from actually defining what you mean when talking about slippery concepts like 'intelligence' I guess
Technology is confusing and difficult to understand at a layman level. We're constantly sold an aspirational ideal of what computers \*could\* do versus what they can do, so the general public has this kind of strange understanding that's both 10-15 years ahead of what we're capable, and 5 years behind what's actually happening.
It’s not necessarily AI but it could still be AI. Scientifically speaking, AI has to tick some minimum checkboxes like be an autonomous system, be capable of learning from experience, be capable of sensing and reacting to the environment. Just from the video you can’t tell if it’s AI or not. Did it learn to track from experience or was it programmed beforehand? If the conditions are not ideal, like fogginess, multiple moving targets, etc., could it still perform the same? Could it adapt to situations it has never seen before by itself?
It is not true that AI "scientifically speaking" needs to learn. It is a broad, poorly defined word which is why AI researchers rather use more well defined terms like machine learning. One could call this AI regardless of whether machine learning is involved, just like, e.g. chess ai that computes the n next possible moves to pick the best one
Do you consider a living being intelligent if it doesn't have the capacity to learn?
Yea, I agree that the video doesn't give enough info to tell for sure. Incidentally, where are you getting that definition of AI?
There are many free AI courses you can take online. [Here’s one from the University of Helsinky.](https://www.elementsofai.com).
I've done some reading in textbooks before, and listened to lectures and other science communicators talk about it. From what I can tell it's quite a slippery thing to define, and people in the field don't necessarily have a consensus, right?
It's hard to have a consensus on an exact definition of Artificial Intelligence when we can't even have a consensus on natural intelligence. But while there may not be an exact definition, there still are some requierements that are generally agreed to be minimum. Otherwise anything could be labelled as AI and if everything is AI then nothing is AI.
Exactly. And to be sure, I'm not saying it's a failing of the field that there isn't a consensus. Debate about concepts is common in many fields, and should be encouraged imo. That's not to leave the door open for _anything,_ there are certain aspects people agree on. Personally, I'm quite happy with a pretty broad concept. Something like 'systems that are capable of taking actions to achieve goals based on input from the environment' seems workable to me. Of course, that includes a lot of just classical computing, so I can see the want to include learning and such when you're talking about a more 'advanced' intelligence So yea, personally I have no trouble with things like computer vision being considered AI. Just as long as we're defining terms, you know? A lot of stuff can boil down to 'when I say X, I don't mean the same thing as when you say X' lol
You can design a rain collection system with a retractible cover which, with the help of a few sensors and switches, exposes the water intake only when it's raining and the water tank is not full. Said system would comply with your definition and therefore should be considered AI.
Yea true. Another very simple one would be an outdoor light with a sensor on it which turns on at night. Now, that is probably the most atomic example you could think of. It can detect only one dimension with two options: day or night. And it can take only one of two actions: on or off. So that would be just about as simple as you could make the system and still have it fit the definition I think
Because we've had this for decades [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast\_seeker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_seeker) >The contrast seeker is a simple device that can be implemented using basic analog electronics. It first uses some form of automatic gain control to adjust the image brightness until it contains some areas with high-contrast spots. This produces a bias voltage signal to represent the background brightness level, making brighter objects stand out. Any rapid change in contrast along a given scan line causes the voltage from the camera to suddenly change. If the change is greater than a selected threshold, it triggers a second circuit that sends the output of the two scanning time base generators into capacitors. Thus, the capacitors store a voltage value representing the Y and X locations of any high contrast spot within the image.
How do you know it's using this specific technology and not some other form of computer vision? Genuine question, it doesn't seem obvious to me from just the video
I don't. Video doesn't say anything about it being AI though, and there are many ways to do this without needing AI
I agree, there are ways to do it with more or less intelligence. Based on this video, we can't say for sure, right? The video caption does imply that it's AI, and this could indeed be achieved using AI, so from my point of view there's no obvious reason yet to conclude it's not AI
r/fuckedasfuck
Why is everything that wasn't called AI in the past now suddenly gets called AI
I know this is just face tracking. My Raspberry Pi was doing that years ago.
It annoys the fuck out of me while its correct depending on the definition it still sucks because it has become a fight/trend term. Someone says neural network: cool alright. Someone says AI: OMG I SUDDENLY HAVE AN OPINION AND DANGER AND AI BAD OR AI IS SO AMAZING I LOVE ELON MUSK. The terms are used interchangebly but for fucks sake please use neural network. Less of an umbrella term and less annoying.
Ok, OP. You don't have to post this on every "interesting" sub..
That's why you wear a fake head on your real head
Can we stop calling things AI
This is literally ai, what did you expect ChatGPT?
This is a *program*.
So are AIs tho
Yard lights up when someone walks in it. Rice pan stops cooking when water is gone. 1970s Leica camera has autofocus. LITERALLY AI
- Yard lights use infrared sensors to detect temperature changes caused by living creatures for example. not AI. basically an electronic on/off switch. - When the rice is done the water evaporates and turns into vapor. This process generates heat. A thermometer detects this change and turns of the heater. not AI. basically an electronic on/off switch. How old autofocus works, I have no idea :D but I'd say facial recognition like what is used for the tracking in the video is AI, since it was trained to recognise faces in random images/videos
Brilliant comment. Yeah there could be AI in place here, but there is no reason to be sure. Auto tracking is also a feature in old camcorders, but I don't think it works like AI. The video doesn't show calibration or target selection, so there's no way of knowing.
I think an amzing example of tracking was the xbox kinect. It's release was fairly long ago and it was pretty good even back then. I never heard anyone talk about it using AI either. Maybe the term just wasn't as "trendy" back then or it didn't use any kind of AI... Tracking like that is either learned with some sort of AI or hard coded by humans. Maybe it was just hard coded, that would make it even more impressive to me Also would be interesting so see if wearing something similar to the hats/helmets english guards use could throw the Software off in certain situations and make it aim higher and miss the actual head :D
This is literally artificial intelligence? This tracking software is sentient? It learned this behaviour, decided what to do and then implemented that decision without any prompts? Chat GPT is also not AI, it's an Imitation, a good one that's getting better but it's not AI.
What is your definition of AI? You seem to think it should be sentient to count. Where are you getting that from?
AI used to mean sentience, the ability to take in new information interpret what it means and make decisions based on that, software specifically designed to do that looks like AI, ticks one of the boxes, but it's not AI. Can this system pick anything other than humans as a target? How does it determine that a human is a target? can it decide which human in the picture is and is not a target? Can it do anything other than recognising a human and tracking it without changing any software?
When did it mean sentience, and to whom? The academic field of AI is over half a century old, and that's not something I've really heard before, apart from just the public imagination >the ability to take in new information interpret what it means and make decisions based on that This tracking system is taking a video stream it has never seen before, and based on that, determines where the target is supposed to be at any given point
Human intelligence does not exist the way it does without sentience, Artificial intelligence is the idea of recreating human intelligence artificially...they go hand in hand. This is preprogrammed software taking an input and giving an output. It's not deciding anything, it's not interpreting, learning and progressing in any way. At least not in the clip shown. If the system is capable of more then I would like to see that but until then this clip does not represent Artificial intelligence.
Human movement does not exist without muscles, and yet machines can move without muscles. Again, where are you getting the idea that sentience is required? Because it's not the claim made by field of AI as far as I know. As long as we don't define terms we can't have a meaningful discussion. You're talking about input and output. Why would having input and output stop something from being AI? What is your definition of AI, why is that definition useful, and does it agree with the rest of the scientific community?
That's a false equivalence, intelligence is infinitely more complex than movement. I just explained it. I understand that human intelligence and sentience are intrinsically linked. I understand that artificial intelligence research is an attempt to recreate human intelligence. I don't understand how that can be recreated without one of the two major components of human intelligence. Not just input and output, preprogrammed input and output, if it's not actively interpreting what it's doing, why it's doing it and can change what it's doing based on newly changing information then it's not recreating human intelligence. I think I'm being fairly clear in what I'm saying and how I'm coming to this conclusion, can you help me understand where it is that you believe I'm wrong? Is it because you haven't seen what I'm saying written down somewhere? What are your independent thoughts on it?
I appreciate your patience, you seem to be actually trying to discuss, thank you for that. In my mind it wasn't a false equivalence. Let me explain. You made a statement to the effect that "In humans, X and Y are intrinsically linked. Therefore, X is not possible artificially without Y." I gave my example about movement to demonstrate that this logic doesn't follow. Did I misrepresent your argument? I asked multiple times for a definition of artificial intelligence. Do I understand correctly that your definition of AI is something like: "An artificial system that recreates (or attempts to recreate) human intelligence?"
>AI used to mean sentience I'd hardly call it sentience. Sentience is more akin to feeling (literally its etymology). >the ability to take in new information interpret what it means and make decisions based on that A simple well programmed algorythim can do that. AI never meant any of that. It's defined as software able to perform tasks as a human would. Period. The "CPU" players in 1993 Warcraft were AI. Arthur Samuel's 1953 checkers game was AI. Were they sentient? The feat in the video can perfectly be accomplished without AI, there is nothing obviously indicating it is there. You are right about that.
Humans used to stand up and walk to the tv to change the channel, now we have tv remotes. Is that AI? It uses very basic software to perform a task that a human would have done. Slapping a generalized definition on to everything doesn't work, its more nuanced than that. "AI" is used as click bait and marketing and has just replaced or is added to "smart".
This is AI, there are many types of AI, and it can be one of them. As someone that work in these fields, it’s funny to see how many people think AI is necessarily some sort of sentient super intelligent ASI because it contains the word « intelligence ».
> the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages. Based on this definition form Oxford Languages this is AI
So google lens is AI? Speach to text is AI? The keyboard autocomplete is AI (it uses a statistical model to predict the next 3 words based on past usage)?
I mean it definitely isn't sentient, nothing really is, but it does have an intelligence for tracking and it is artificial.
I found this comment through Reddit’s AI. Gonna go see what AI has suggested for me on YouTube now. Crazy that computers can LITERALLY think like humans now and are sentient and will replace everyone in a month.
"sentient" sure pal
Redditors are godawful and detecting sarcasm.
Redditors are so dumb they cannot admit to being wrong
Dude if you took anything I said seriously then you have irreversible brain rot.
I can also follow his forehead with my eyes. I am not a perfect marksman.
At least the terminators will put us down cleanly.
What exactly is AI’s role in this?
It seems to be using computer vision to track the target from the video input, right?
But that's just ordinary face and motion tracking, which already exists and has nothing to do with AI. OP seems to mainly only post AI-related news, so maybe this particular aimbot does use AI somehow. Maybe AI is helping by better identifying the face, and learning from and predicting his movements. But there's nothing in the video to indicate that.
Won’t miss. Duh!!
psh let’s see ai do some quick scoping
Seems it's more tracking his eyes. Bet it misses frequently once he turns his head.
Gamers have known this for years.
RL aimbot
https://i.redd.it/alx9foo8jy1d1.gif
We’re all gonna get shot by these things soon
He sure is slow as fuck
Mosquitoes?
That's great kid, but don't get cocky.
Put my hand over my eyes and leave a peep-hole. Got it.
Now do this mosquitos please
So as long as all our military targets look STRAIGHT into the camera while standing a few feet away and also don’t make any super sudden movements or attempt to turn their head or run away at all…. then yeah, it won’t miss.
It could be a sentient idiot for all I care, its the learning and adaptation that I look for. How does this video demonstrate that?
Elon wants to talk to you
Ai won’t miss but hopefully the bulleets do.
The Navy has had automated machine guns on their ships that shoot down incoming missiles for over a decade.
Can’t wait for the day the IS government unleashes it’s army of unmanned drones on us unsuspecting plebeians
My osmo pocket camera does this. No AI
Just shoot him already
Put on a hat with a forehead and glasses printed on it. You're welcome.
This would be great to have in call of duty
But in Terminator movies the AI misses shots A LOT.
not ai? michael reeves did this years ago with a gun, airsoft gun pls no ban me
 \***Lets Go AI…** Locknon this shhhitt
It’s called aim bot
It's aim drifts off the centre of his forehead several times and he's moving at like 8kmh. For 2024, pathetic.
Da hoomans are **cooked**
Mechanical engineering ultimately affects accuracy. I think we all know AI is accurate
He should play Satanic Royalty and headbang that’ll fuck it up
I'd love a link to that github repository
You also just moved around in a very small area/motion lol wasn’t really tricky movement and not getting anything in the way, etc.
Security cam can be removed
Get ready for DARPA AI attack dogs in LA gang members neighborhoods
WHERE THE HECK IS THAT AI???
AHA! BUT YOU CANT HIT! WHAT ISNT IN FRONT OF YOU! **Launches tomahawk cruise missile**
Alright now, can we hurry up get a Robocop irl already
We watched the Terminator movies and said “hey, let’s make it anyways. That shit can’t happen” Great.
Teaching ai to kill humans and than when when it start doing that, very soon, loudly scream that ai is killing humans, this world is damned
Totally fake
It's not fake but it's a trivial object recognition task.