Hacker News Reader

I'd honestly be quite surprised if AI research discovers novel and useful dogfight tactics. The interplay between speed, height, position, and direction has been pretty thoroughly mined for ideas, there's been little in terms of updates since Boyd's 1964 Aerial Attack Study (I found a copy at http://oplaunch.com/resources/aerial-attack-study-1964.pdf if you're curious)

View on HN

Then again, the AI system Eurisko won the Trillon Credit Squadron game twice in a row, each time with novel strategies. You might say that dogfighting is more constrained by laws of physics we already know, and so this won't happen. But wouldn't you hate to be proven wrong?

I would bet the inverse. If the majority of tactics is spearheaded by one person from 1964 - that probably means there's a lot of innovation.

I found reading Boyd's biography, so much effort was made before decision makers would use his tactics, even when they were clearly superior.

Even board game like Go and Chess have experienced new and novel tactics from AI despite being much older, with lower barriers to entry. Inversely, dogfighting is new and the barriers to entry are so high its unlikely its close to optimal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com