Korea module data leak statement?

[Holtzauge]

Has there been an announcement already, or are the developers planning to address the leak of data connected to the Il-2 Sturmovik Korea module?

 

Because the data leaked seems credible and it did contain certain items that are hard to connect to the Korea time frame, and it would therefore be good to hear the Il-2 developer’s side on this.

 

I’m sure I’m not the only one seeking clarity here, because many of us have funded the development of various modules in Il-2 and in order to make an informed decision about any future funding, a statement on the part of the developers would be most helpful.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Has there been a data leak?

[Holtzauge]

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to link to it but it's not that hard to find information about it if you google.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

8 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

it's not that hard to find information about it if you google.

It is, otherwise I wouldn't have asked

 

But yeah, I understand you don't want to share it; the Moderators probably won't like it.

[Aapje]

It's hard to not draw the obvious conclusion, and I doubt that 1CGS would allow us to discuss that here. It definitely would be far more political than recent comments that were removed for being too political.

Edited January 16 by Aapje

[DD_Arthur]

16 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It is, otherwise I wouldn't have asked

 

But yeah, I understand you don't want to share it; the Moderators probably won't like it.

 

I believe it might be this discussion 

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

It's the modern arms race I'm afraid.

Drones, robots.. slaughter bots.

ALL SHOULD BE BANNED.

 

Wasn't the whole point of the League of Nations, followed by the UN, to prevent wars.. how did that work out ?

 

In any case we should be against this sort of thing from all sides, I don't see the point of picking on just one side.

We're all funding this sort of thing through our taxes wherever we live.

What's good for the goose..

 

And of course it could just be propaganda.

 

 

[354thFG_Leifr]

--- User edit, redundant comment

Edited January 17 by 356thFS_Leifr

[Holtzauge]

Guys: Please DO NOT break the forum rules and get this thread locked or deleted. I think this question deserves an answer from the developers. A lot hangs on it in my opinion but let's not jump to conclusions.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

9 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

It's the modern arms race I'm afraid. [...] In any case we should be against this sort of thing from all sides

Yeah, and not having any arms only works until some country decides it wants to control another country, or one country wants to protect its trade interest, or because the country's leaders want to preserve the status quo, or because they want to change the status quo.... (intentionally leaving modern politics out of it by choosing examples from the distant past).

But I'm sure such a thing would never happen.

 

There have been wars and violence ever since the Stone Age, and I don't see that change in the next couple of millennia.

 

12 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

I think this question deserves an answer from the developers. A lot hangs on it in my opinion but let's not jump to conclusions.

Agreed. There are always two sides to the story, even if it's true.

[Avimimus]

1 minute ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Yeah, and not having any arms only works until...

 

There is a difference from complete unilateral disarmament and conventional arms reduction (e.g. bilaterally reducing the size of standing armies or limiting certain weapons, logistics, or supply chains) in such a way that offensive warfare becomes infeasible. We've already seen the results of such a period of relative disarmament having an effect in limiting the infrastructure required for a successful (WWII style or Cold War style) offensive.

 

You are setting up a straw man here: It is like when people say 'you're a pacifist, so you are against fighting WWII!'" That is like saying 'you're pro-military, so you must be a jingoist who supports every single war in human history, including offensive war's against your own country!"

 

Very few pacifists are extreme 'tolstoyans'. Similarly, conventional arms reduction is not the same as unilateral disarmament.

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

42 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Guys: Please DO NOT break the forum rules and get this thread locked or deleted. I think this question deserves an answer from the developers. A lot hangs on it in my opinion but let's not jump to conclusions.

 

I'm pretty sure your opening gambit here breaks the forum rules, and subsequently we're trying to be as non-specific as we can.

I hope this isn't locked or deleted also, but I'm not sure how we can discuss anything relative to this without sailing too close to the wind..

 

In any case, I don't see how the developers are ever going to be able to comment on this.

We're in the realms of national security.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

There is a difference from complete unilateral disarmament and conventional arms reduction (e.g. bilaterally reducing the size of standing armies or limiting certain weapons, logistics, or supply chains) in such a way that offensive warfare becomes infeasible.

Oh I agree. And I think that bilateral arms reduction is a good thing. Although again, that only works until one country starts to re-arm, for any of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Violent conflict is inherent to the human nature; even if the whole world would decide together to throw all weapons into the sea, that would only work for a while.

 

I took Zooropa_Fly's "we should be against this sort of thing from all sides" to mean that we should be against any weapons entirely. While that's an admirable thought, it's completely unrealistic and that's what I wanted to say in my last post. But you're right that there are other ways to read his argument.

[I./JG68_Sperber]

I have to revise myself. I will never buy anything from 1CGS again.....☹️

[MajorMagee]

I am firmly in the Peace Through Strength camp.

[Avimimus]

50 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I'm pretty sure your opening gambit here breaks the forum rules, and subsequently we're trying to be as non-specific as we can.

 

Yes, forum rules still apply to this thread (just as they would with any other thread).

 

For instance, the discussion about conventional disarmament might with @AEthelraedUnraed might actually be a discussion of politics - but if we decide it is, I'll  at least ensure that I receive the same penalties as anyone else would. I did feel a need to respond on a personal level, especially as I've been thinking about conventional disarmament agreements (as proposed prior to WWI and in the interwar period) as perhaps the only way to prevent nuclear proliferation... and the topic feels... existential? Anyway, I appreciate the very reasonable response to my reply.

 

Feel free to read through the rules:

If you ever think a moderator has misunderstood or misinterpreted the rules - do feel free to send a direct message to the moderator - as we do think about and discuss the feedback we receive.

 

 

4 minutes ago, MajorMagee said:

I am firmly in the Peace Through Strength camp.

 

I can't help to feel there is some accuracy to this (including the mobilisation hypothesis):

 

 

But I definitely lean more towards the Strength through Peace camp. Of course, I come from one of the smaller countries... so our ability to imagine that we can reliably meet a great power in terms of might and defend our 'peace' that way would require quite a bit of delusion I suspect. Might explain some of my biases.

[Zooropa_Fly]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I took Zooropa_Fly's "we should be against this sort of thing from all sides" to mean that we should be against any weapons entirely.

 

Just to clarify, that was within the mentioned context of autonomous killing machines.

They are now a reality and aren't being used to particularly target enemy combatants. That's a fact.

 

The 'rules of war' as we knew them no longer exist. The Geneva Convention is no longer worth the paper it's written on.

So if we continue to let the AI decide who lives and dies, the chickens will eventually come home to roost.

 

The 'Terminator' scenario is now very close to becoming a reality, but it doesn't have to be full sized humanoid robots.

Drones little bigger than a fly exist with the power to track down and kill anyone with a single 'charge' to the forehead, and let's face it we can all be tracked down very easily now.

These things can be manufactured cheaply by the millions.. and probably already have been.

If they were released there would be no stopping them.

[I./JG68_Sperber]

Yes, war is making everything develop faster! In 50 years there will be no real pilots left, only VR pilots! Even in civil aviation! No more partying in the cockpit! Real pilots simply die too quickly, like me in my 109😂 gg, they are too expensive and have a union....😉

[BlitzPig_EL]

Aside from commercial aviation, where the union thing is important to the owners of the airline, military aviation will go to pilotless aircraft because that meat servo that operates the aircraft places many limitations on aircraft performance.  With a pilotless aircraft, the "pilot" sitting in a remote location will be able to pull all kinds of crazy high G maneuvers,  you know, like us sim pilots have been doing for decades.

[I./JG68_Sperber]

16 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Abgesehen von der kommerziellen Luftfahrt, wo die Gewerkschaftssache den Eigentümern der Fluggesellschaft wichtig ist, wird die militärische Luftfahrt auf pilotenlose Flugzeuge umsteigen, da der Servomotor, der das Flugzeug steuert, die Leistung des Flugzeugs stark einschränkt. Mit einem pilotenlosen Flugzeug kann der „Pilot“, der an einem entfernten Ort sitzt, alle möglichen verrückten Manöver mit hoher G-Kraft durchführen, wie wir Sim-Piloten es seit Jahrzehnten tun.

Cool, at 60 I can change my job straight away... 35 years of experience... Good CV gg

[Trooper117]

Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in 4th century AD. ''If you want peace, prepare for war''

[BladeMeister]

1 hour ago, I./JG68_Sperber said:

I have to revise myself. I will never buy anything from 1CGS again.....☹️

And locked in 3,2,1....

 

S!Blade<><

[I./JG68_Sperber]

 I always solve the biggest problems straight away! That's worked well for me for 56 years. All our international problems should have been solved after WW2! WW2 was the ultimate catastrophe! Now everything is starting all over again! Our leaders are to blame for this, they have the 7 deadly sins in their party program! Envy, gluttony, greed, lust, arrogance, laziness and anger. Period! We could all change that! But we don't and that's been the case ever since people existed...😮‍💨

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Just to clarify, that was within the mentioned context of autonomous killing machines.

They are now a reality and aren't being used to particularly target enemy combatants. That's a fact.

 

The 'rules of war' as we knew them no longer exist. The Geneva Convention is no longer worth the paper it's written on.

So if we continue to let the AI decide who lives and dies, the chickens will eventually come home to roost.

 

The 'Terminator' scenario is now very close to becoming a reality, but it doesn't have to be full sized humanoid robots.

Drones little bigger than a fly exist with the power to track down and kill anyone with a single 'charge' to the forehead, and let's face it we can all be tracked down very easily now.

These things can be manufactured cheaply by the millions.. and probably already have been.

If they were released there would be no stopping them.

With the risk of going slightly off topic here...

 

The way you describe AI echoes popular misconceptions that are sadly perpetuated by an ignorant media.

 

Even the current state-of-the-art in AI is at its core still a deterministic machine, and I don't see any of that change in the future. A Convolutional Neural Network (CNN, the underlying architecture of most current AI) is nothing more than a mathematical transfer function that given input X creates output Y. That means that inherently, there is nothing an AI does that an old-fashioned piece of programming code cannot (theoretically, at least). It also means that inherently, an AI cannot start thinking and reasoning like a human does. An army of AI drones doesn't just decide they feel oppressed and start conquering humanity, because they don't feel or decide - they just do. And they do exactly what they are trained for, given a certain input.

 

That is not to say that an AI can't make mistakes - but so can humans (and everything points towards AI that's properly trained on representative datasets making less mistakes than humans). It also doesn't mean that an AI cannot be trained to deliberately target civilians (or perhaps, not trained to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants) - but again, so can humans.

 

Personally, I'd rather have drones shooting other drones, than people shooting other people.

Edited January 17 by AEthelraedUnraed

[BOO]

This topic is getting derailed.

 

It isnt about love peace and disarmament.

 

Its about why a Chimera Pro7 drone, alledgedly of the type being used in the Ukaine by Russians, along with the same types weapons being dropped by those drones, has turned up modelled in a 1CGS data leak. 

 

Ultimately 1CGS doesnt have to explain a damn thing, but the intimation is that it is now involved in Real World miltiary applications that some may find an unpallitable association (though this is no different than Eagle Dyniamics and would very much depend on whether you prefer Tennessee Whisky to Vodka I suspect). 

 

No statement would, in my book at least, confirm the suspicion.

Edited January 17 by BOO

[Zooropa_Fly]

12 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That means that inherently, there is nothing an AI does that an old-fashioned piece of programming code cannot (theoretically, at least). It also means that inherently, an AI cannot start thinking and reasoning like a human does.

 

I fully agree. Machines only do what we program them to do.

 

 

12 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Personally, I'd rather have drones shooting other drones, than people shooting other people.

 

So do you think that when 'our' drones beat 'their' drones - 'they'll' say Ok you won, take all our stuff ?

Like a big game of TV's 'Robot Wars'.

I'd doubt that very much.

Fact is these machines are currently being deployed against people and their properties, you don't have to look very far to see that.

The 'slaughter bots' aren't being developed to take out other 'slaughter bots', as per a certain Ted Talk of recent times.

 

There's nothing more cowardly on this planet than a weaponised drone operator.

 

And it's not just about drones themselves, AI is now being extensively used in targeting and decision making.

In recent times the 'decisions' have been that anything that moves is a target - man / woman / child / baby or animal.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by Zooropa_Fly

[DD_Arthur]

5 minutes ago, BOO said:

This topic is getting derailed.

 

It isnt about love peace and disarmament.

 

Its about why a Chimera Pro7 drone of the type being used in the Ukaine by Russians, along with the same types weapons being dropped by those drones, has turned up modelled in a 1CGS data leak. 

 

Ultimately 1CGS doesnt have to explain a damn thing, but the intimation is that it is now involved in Real World miltiary applications that some may find an unpallitable association (though this is no different than Eagle Dyniamics and would very much depend on whether you prefer Tennessee Whisky to Vodka I suspect). 

 

No statement would, in my book at least, confirm the suspicion.

 

1CGS is a company registered in Cyprus,  within the EU.

There is an EU wide embargo on exports or assistance with the export of military equipment or assisting the armed forces of the Russian federation in acquiring military equipment. 

The Russian federation is currently under EU sanctions.

These are measures similar to those enacted by the government's of the United States, Canada and the UK.

 

Citizens of those countries involved with or employed by companies or organisations breaking sanctions are liable to investigation and questioning by the relevant government authorities.

[Zooropa_Fly]

12 minutes ago, BOO said:

This topic is getting derailed.

 

Well yes, but it's a non-starter to begin with.

We can't exactly talk specifically about the OP.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

17 minutes ago, BOO said:

This topic is getting derailed.

Duh, this is the IL2 forum. 1C has finally discovered the giga-brain strategy of sending all scandals to the forum, to be morphed into I dont even want to know what this thread turns into.

[BOO]

4 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

1CGS is a company registered in Cyprus,  within the EU.

There is an EU wide embargo on exports or assistance with the export of military equipment or assisting the armed forces of the Russian federation in acquiring military equipment. 

The Russian federation is currently under EU sanctions.

These are measures similar to those enacted by the government's of the United States, Canada and the UK.

 

Citizens of those countries involved with or employed by companies or organisations breaking sanctions are liable to investigation and questioning by the relevant government authorities.

 

Yup - my point was that there is no evidence of assistance other than a few files in a folder and if there is any explaining to do, its not this commuity that it'll need to be done to. 

[I./JG68_Sperber]

The main thing is that we can here communicate! No communication or fake communication is our problem!

[BOO]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Well yes, but it's a non-starter to begin with.

We can't exactly talk specifically about the OP.

 

So say nothing instead of engaging in a back and forth about ---- on a stick and allow the OP to stand without it being drown out in all the noise.

 

2 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Duh, this is the IL2 forum. 1C has finally discovered the giga-brain strategy of sending all scandals to the forum, to be morphed into I dont even want to know what this thread turns into.

 

Yup

[Holtzauge]

Again, let's avoid getting this thread locked. We can speculate all we want, but I want to hear the developers side of this story before I come to any conclusion.

 

 

Edited January 17 by Holtzauge

[354thFG_Leifr]

I'm pretty shocked that A) the Reddit thread is still open, and B) this thread is still running and open.

[Trooper117]

''Me and the dog are just nipping out for a bit''...

 

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Just to clarify, that was within the mentioned context of autonomous killing machines.

They are now a reality and aren't being used to particularly target enemy combatants. That's a fact.

 

My understanding is that the drones currently being used are overwhelmingly remotely operated. Drones are at least as useful as information gathering tools, than as weapon platforms, so contact with the base is important anyway.

 

And certain levels of autonomy are nothing new. Cruise missiles can navigate terrain themselves and modern anti-air and anti-radiation missiles can also go 'pitbull,' finding a target on their own. Anti-ship missiles can probably do the same.

 

And this entire discussion has little to do with the topic at hand, because the drone in question was marked as flyable, and there is no indication that it has a targeting AI.

 

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

The 'rules of war' as we knew them no longer exist. The Geneva Convention is no longer worth the paper it's written on.

 

Do you actually know what is written in the Geneva Convention texts? The texts do not ban AI or autonomous systems. And they certainly do not ban war.

 

Of course you may want to extend the Geneva Conventions, but that doesn't change the fact that they have never contained what you would like them to contain, so why would they suddenly no longer be worth the paper it's written on? Especially since they cover a lot of other things that are still important.

 

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

So if we continue to let the AI decide who lives and dies, the chickens will eventually come home to roost.

 

The 'Terminator' scenario is now very close to becoming a reality, but it doesn't have to be full sized humanoid robots.

Drones little bigger than a fly exist with the power to track down and kill anyone with a single 'charge' to the forehead, and let's face it we can all be tracked down very easily now.

 

You are gravely exaggerating where the technology is, right now.

[Holtzauge]

Well, looks like this thread is descending into a death spiral. But still, it had a good run: The question in the OP has been asked and it still begs an answer IMO. Either here or in a separate statement or announcement by the developers. But if we don't get that, then we will have to interpret that as the answer.

 

 

Edited January 17 by Holtzauge

[I./JG68_Sperber]

40 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Nun, es sieht so aus, als würde dieser Thread in eine Todesspirale abdriften. Aber er lief trotzdem gut: Die Frage im OP wurde gestellt und bedarf meiner Meinung nach immer noch einer Antwort. Entweder hier oder in einer separaten Stellungnahme oder Ankündigung der Entwickler. Aber wenn wir die nicht bekommen, müssen wir das als Antwort interpretieren.

 

 

Yes, very disciplined so far! That's because most of the people here are grandpas...🤣

[Zooropa_Fly]

50 minutes ago, Aapje said:

You are gravely exaggerating where the technology is, right now.

 

How do you know where technology is right now ?

[Sgt_Joch]

well a lot of this is idle speculation, but it is a bit naive to think our little game may not be influenced by outside events.

 

Battlefront, the developers of the Combat Mission series have had contracts with the U.S. and UK military for years where they use a modified version of their games to help train soldiers in modern combat. Since a large number of the IL2 developers and programmers are Russian and working in Russia, it would not be a stretch to think that they are also working on military contracts for the Russian military.

 

Military contracts can be hugely profitable and the skills developed in making military simulations is directly applicable.

 

But again this is just idle speculation. The developers may but are not obliged to clarify the situation. If they are working on Russian military contracts, it would probably be illegal in Russia for them to confirm this fact.