and the enemy doesn't need to beat the AI in dogfight, just the infinite side channel attacks on the training set.
WW3 might be won by adding a few high intensity LEDs to some old MIGs.
https://www.businessinsider.com/clothes-accessories-that-out...
There just aren't that many methods of interacting with a plane >1km away, and even fewer at the 50-100KM ranges that modern fighters are built to fight at.
I'd disagree. Data is more important than the model. But also you can do black box attacks on AI pretty effectively. What you do is train your AI to perform a similar feat and then figure out its weaknesses. Those weaknesses are likely to translate to the other AI. Robustness is a difficult task.
As for blasting confusing data, well that already happens to human pilots. There are radar jammers, targeting jammers, visually occluding devices, etc. But hey, if an AI can operate under 90% of typical dog fight situations, then that's a big reduction in needed pilots. Then those pilots can be all trained to be aces.
I don’t think the problem is fundamentally different from the pre-AI state of electronic warfare and countermeasures.
It's just another step in the arms race ladder.