We need a new DARPA challenge to see what can be done with these ai models and weapon design. Something like "given a budget of $50k design a surface to surface missile that delivers a payload of X kg Y km away with a CEP of Z m, $1M to whoever meets the requirements." because I could use a million dollars.

idk if most know how straightforward this is these days even without AI. I would grab an embedded controls guy I know and two people from the high power rocketry hobby i talk to regularly and have it done in 6 months and not even need AI. Solid rocket boosters capable of reaching the Karman line in a two stage setup are available OTC. Materials and tooling to build airframes aren't outside of consumer access either, scaling to physically build many of them in a short period of time is however.

You know, DARPA doesn't even need to be involved. Some rich person could just setup a contest with awards and see who shows up, it could be held out on one of those dry lakebeds in Nevada. I think the results would be very interesting.

▲

michelb 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s probably the influence of the current American administration, but I find all these AI weapons projects and startups so unbelievably uninspiring. Same with the fighting robots. We finally have a somewhat intelligent AI and we’re not advancing our healthcare, personal care, environmental problems, speeding up construction, finding new materials, etc.

The first one that gets to AGI will make the world worse instead of better. Depressing.

	▲	Avicebron 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Destruction is easy and entropically rewarded. We've long since lost our way in rewarding and recognizing things that are positive. Howl by Ginsberg needs a rewrite. "The greatest minds of my generation were harnessed to boil the oceans and reduce the world to ash in the pursuit of capital gains"

▲

schaefer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Some rich person could just setup a contest with awards and see who shows up, it could be held out on one of those dry lakebeds in Nevada.

As a resident of Nevada - HELL NO. That's BLM land. Not an amateure weapons test site.

If "some rich person" wants to get involved in crowdsourcing weapons research, please do that on private land... so everyone will know exactly who to sue should things go sideways.

▲

chasd00 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> As a resident of Nevada - HELL NO.

BLM is federal, so as a US Citizen I say HELL YES.

	▲	piloto_ciego 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree! I'm an Alaskan. I think we should be doing all sorts of stuff up here too! Let's build! I cannot stand this NIMBY nonsense!

▲

missedthecue 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Making rockets that are computer guided in any way except for "vertical stabilization" is a felony in the US, so DARPA would need to be involved to hand out waivers.

	▲	jjk166 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No it isn't. Guidance systems are perfectly legal. The FAA has some common sense restrictions like "you can't fly it at an airplane" or "you can't fly it over a crowd" or "you can't attach an explosive charge" but the only point to point flight profile that is illegal is that you can't launch into another country's territory. And of course these restrictions are on the flights themselves, not on the capabilities of the rocket. Selling rocket guidance systems internationally is going to get you in trouble with ITAR, but that's a whole different can of worms.