Categories
Uncategorized

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver — The Big-Tailed Beast By Peter Suciu

In 1937, the Curtiss SBC Helldiver entered service, but even at that point, the carrier-based two-seat scout/dive bomber was on the verge of being obsolete. Interestingly, it was also the second aircraft produced by Curtiss-Wright to earn the designation “Helldiver” after the United States Marine Corps’ version of the Curtiss Falcon, operated by the U.S. Navy as the F8C Falcon.

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver flies over Tientsin China
Curtiss SB2C-5 Helldiver of Bombing Squadron Ten (VB-10), USS Intrepid (CV-11), flies over Tientsin, China, as the city is reoccupied by the Allies in September 1945. Image: U.S. Navy

The name was recycled just six years later with the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver 2, a carrier-based dive bomber designed to supplement and replace the Douglas SBD Dauntless.

To suggest it had a rocky start and a less-than-stellar service life would be a severe understatement. Still, it went on to be produced in large numbers and saw extensive service in the Pacific Theater. It initially earned a reputation for poor handling, structural flaws, and unreliability. Yet, it became the primary dive bomber in service at the end of the Second World War, with its success attributed as much to the skill and bravery of the pilots as to the aircraft.

landing officer aboard USS Franklin CV-13 waves off a Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
The landing officer aboard the USS Franklin (CV-13) waves off a Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Image: U.S. Navy

It took time for the Helldiver to be proven in action, and it went on to become an effective carrier-launched dive and torpedo-bomber in the war against the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). Its troubled development and aforementioned issues led to the aircraft earning the unfortunate moniker “The Beast,” while some pilots suggested the designation SB2C meant “Son of a bitch, second class.”

The Helldiver’s failures also contributed in a small part to the decline of Curtiss-Wright, which failed to adjust to the post-war aircraft designs and sold its assets to North American Aviation in 1948.

Hard Act to Follow

Aviation historians have argued that the core of the SB2C Helldiver’s troubles began with the SBD Dauntless. Although that aircraft was antiquated when America entered WWII and was very much in need of a replacement, it also meant there were huge shoes to be filled. The Dauntless wasn’t the right plane needed to win the war, but it was an aircraft that kept America in the fight.

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver from USS Intrepid CV-11 on mission to attack Japanese fleet
A USS Intrepid (CV-11) Air Group SB2C “Helldiver” aircraft in flight, en-route to attack the Japanese fleet. Image: U.S. Navy

Being the designated successor to the Dauntless left very little room for error, of which there was no shortage with the Helldiver.

Part of the problem was that the United States Navy also needed a war-winning aircraft, and it needed it quickly.

Development of the Helldiver began before America entered the Second World War, where it followed a series of increasingly capable (and sometimes less capable) aircraft that quickly came and went.

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver: The Last Dive Bomber

From the late 1920’s, the U.S. Navy and USMC saw a need for a dive bomber, which led to the development of the Curtis F8C Falcon and subsequently the aforementioned Curtiss SBC Helldiver. Dive bombers would be antiquated by the end of the Second World War, but in the 1930’s, numerous military planners saw their capabilities.

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver at Patuxent River Maryland 1944
A Curtiss SB2C Helldiver parked on the tarmac at NATC Patuxent River, Maryland in May 1944. Image: U.S. Navy

Even as Curtiss was working on the P-40 Warhawk and P-36 Hawk, it began to design the Helldiver in early 1939.

The early prototype was problem-plagued, resulting in stalls that led to a crash just months after it made its first flight. The project was led by a group under aviation designer Raymond C. Blaylock, but many of its issues shouldn’t be attributed to Blaylock or his team.

Instead, it was the U.S. Navy’s call for an aircraft that could serve as a scout bomber from aircraft carriers. The specifications were extremely comprehensive and left little room for maneuver.

Among the U.S. Navy’s designs was that the aircraft was to be a stressed-skin cantilever monoplane with an internal weapons bay that could hold a 1,000-pound bomb and a wide range of other stores. That bomb bay was closed by hydraulically operated doors. The airframe was to be stressed for dive-bombing as well as carrier-capable with folding wings, catapult hooks, and arrester hooks.

SB2C Helldiver of USS Hancock CV-19 in flight to attack Japanese shipping at Kurin Ko 1944
A SB2C Helldiver of USS Hancock (CV-19) in flight to attack Japanese shipping at Kurin Ko in October 1944. Image: U.S. Navy

In addition, the aircraft was to be operated by a crew of two, able to carry a large amount of fuel, as well as comprehensive radio and other equipment. The specified engine was the Wright R-2600 14-cylinder Cyclone.

Due to the strict specifications, the prototype closely resembled the rival aircraft considered by the U.S. Navy, the Brewster XSMA-1 Buccaneer. It would be fair to suggest that the offering was an even poorer design. Instead of seeing any problems, the U.S. Navy placed an order for the SB2C before the prototype took flight. Had it waited and witnessed the crash, the service may have gone in another direction.

Addressing the Problems

The fact that the prototype crashed didn’t end the program, of course, but it did cause them to address some issues with the design. In what could be described as a “too big to fail” moment for the company and the U.S. Navy, it pressed on. A second revised prototype aircraft was built with a lengthened fuselage of about a foot and other improvements, including a larger tail area. It was also outfitted with an autopilot to address some of the stability issues.

tied down to the deck of the USS Kwajalein CVE-98 during typhoon 1944
A Curtiss SB2C Helldiver is tied down to the deck of the USS Kwajalein (CVE-98) during a typhoon in December 1944. Image: U.S. Navy

The design team was also able to improve the aircraft based on combat reports from Europe. It resulted in the use of self-sealing fuel tanks in the fuselage and inner wings, while additional armor was added. The forward-firing .50-caliber machine guns were changed from two about the cowling to four guns placed in the wings. The rear cockpit was further redesigned with a collapsible decking that was meant to improve the field of fire from the observer’s single .50-caliber machine gun. That weapon was later changed to twin .30-caliber (7.62mm) guns.

The second prototype crashed during a test dive on December 21, 1941, just two weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Were the United States not at war, that crash might have been the end for the Helldiver. Instead, the U.S. Navy called for additional changes, with some sources suggesting more than 800 alterations were made to satisfy military planners. Those included further modifications to the armament and fuselage to address the handling, but it raised the empty weight of the aircraft by as much as 42%.

Curtiss SB2C Helldivers from USS Yorktown CV-10
A pair of Curtiss SB2C Helldivers from the USS Yorktown (CV-10). The rake-like antenna beneath the wing is the ASB search radar. Image: U.S. Navy

So enormous was the production scheme for the SB2C Helldiver at that point that it fell seriously behind schedule. Curtiss was contracted to begin deliveries in December 1941, but no production aircraft were even being assembled. The added changes and modifications only led to further delays.

Prototypes and Production Models

With the United States having to massively gear up for the war in Europe and the Pacific, efforts were made to speed up the program. But then an additional order for 900 Helldivers came from the United States Army Air Forces, to be designated the A-25 Shrike and serve as a land-based dive bomber. That required that the carrier gear be deleted, which further caused delays.

US Navy Curtiss SB2C Helldivers from USS Philippine Sea in flight
Curtiss Helldivers of VA-9A on the USS Philippine Sea (CV-47) in flight on April 1, 1948. Lt. Cdr. L.G. Traynor, commanding. Image: U.S. Navy

Even as the prototype SB2C Helldivers were undergoing testing, the demand for combat aircraft was so great that production began. Six production aircraft rolled off the assembly line, and they were in most respects worse than the prototypes, incorporating untested or unrefined features. The significant increase in weight meant it was sluggish and hard to maneuver.

With production models piling up and a need for combat aircraft, the SB2C Helldiver was delivered and used to equip U.S. Navy Scouting Squadron 9 (VS-9) in December 1942. It wasn’t deemed “suitable for combat,” and it would be nearly a year later, until November 11, 1943, that the Helldiver was judged to be operationally effective and would finally take part in a combat mission.

six Curtiss SB2C Helldivers flying in formation during 1944
Six Curtiss SB2C Helldivers flying in formation during 1944. Image: U.S. Navy

Trying to build a “multi-role” fighter in wartime that could be used by the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps was already a daunting task. It was made worse as there was literally no time to perfect the aircraft, and it was left to the U.S. Navy aviators, the first to receive the Helldiver, to sort out the teething problems.

Helldiver Goes to War

It was in late 1943 that VB-17 finally carried out the first operational sortie that saw the SCB2 dive into action, operating from the Essex-class carrier USS Bunker Hill (CV-17), with the bombing of Rabaul, New Britain, which had been occupied by Japan nearly two years earlier.

Curtiss Helldiver crashes on USS Wasp CV-18
A Curtiss Helldiver crashes on the USS Wasp (CV-18). The pilot and gunner are starting to exit while the ship’s crew rush forward to assist. Image: U.S. Navy

A total of three fleet carriers, two light carriers, 282 carrier-based aircraft, and an additional 349 land-based aircraft took part in the operations. The battle saw the first combat operations of the Helldiver, but also its first loss.

One plane, piloted by an Ensign Thompson, was shot down, while reports cite that another may have been lost on takeoff and another to anti-aircraft fire. One Helldiver also crashed upon landing and was later pushed into the sea due to the battle damage.

Beyond the losses, the raid on the Japanese positions revealed significant shortcomings with the aircraft.

Naval aviators noted that the performance was lacking compared to the SBD Dauntless, and there were complaints that it was challenging to handle, particularly at slower speeds. More ominously, multiple aircraft suffered from structural problems, including tailwheel and hook failures. The biggest issue was that the Helldiver’s complex hydraulic and electrical systems demanded intense and extensive maintenance.

Curtiss Helldiver returns from a raid on Formosa in October 1944
A Curtiss Helldiver returns to the USS Hancock (CV-19) after a raid on Formosa in October 1944. Image: U.S. Navy

In all, even after delays in sending the dive bomber into service, the Helldiver failed to live up to lowered expectations when it finally arrived.

Still, the SBC2 Helldiver was the aircraft the U.S. Navy had to serve in the dive bombing role, and it was used in every significant surface action as an integral part of the carrier strike groups. Between late 1943 and the end of the war, the SCB2 Helldiver served in a total of 30 U.S. Navy carrier-based bombing squadrons, which by that point had been merged with the scouting squadrons.

Those included VB-1 to VB-20, VB-80 through VB-88, and VB-94.

As the war continued, the Helldiver was steadily improved, leading to multiple variants. That included a cannon that was fitted to the SB2C-1C, while one of the most effective changes was employed with the SB2C-4, which received the distinctive “cheese grater” split flaps that aided stability during a dive. In June 1944, the U.S. Navy also changed the color schemes of all of its aircraft to the now famous gloss dark blue, and that included its squadrons of Helldivers.

The various modifications resulted in a better and even more respected aircraft.

USS Midway CVB-41 in 1947 with a deck load of Curtiss SB2C Helldivers
USS Midway (CVB-41) off Norfolk, Virginia in May 1947 with a deck full of SB2C Helldiver bombers. Image: U.S. Navy

During the First Battle of the Philippine Sea on June 19, 1944, the SB2C claimed more than 350 Japanese aircraft destroyed in what has become known as the “Marianas Turkey Shoot.” The next day, 51 Helldivers and 54 Grumman TBF Avengers launched an attack on the retreating Japanese fleet. Although the American forces destroyed 600 carrier and land-based aircraft, all but eight Helldivers were lost — many of the aircraft forced to ditch into the sea as they were low on fuel and darkness fell. Others crashed as the pilots were not qualified for night-time deck landings.

Moreover, in the fall of 1944, even as the SB2C-3 was in service, numerous problems continued with the aircraft, so much so that Vice-Admiral Marc Mitscher, commander of Task Force 58 in the Philippine Sea, at one point even considered replacing the plane with the Dauntless. However, production had ended on it, and his forces, stuck with the “Dash-3” version, made do.

A combination of determination and gradual improvements on the Helldiver enabled the job to be completed. It was among the U.S. Navy aircraft at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where four Japanese carriers were sunk. SB2C-3s went on to carry out strikes against land targets on Formosa and the Philippine Islands.

Even as the role of dive bombing began to diminish, in April 1945, the Helldiver was among the aircraft that carried out the last major attack on Japanese warships in the open sea. The dive bomber took part in the pursuit and then sinking of the famed IJNS Yamato.

A-25 Shrike — Strike and a Miss

As previously mentioned, the United States Army Air Forces had also ordered 900 of the aircraft, and the first 10 aircraft were produced with folding wings. It was a feature not required, and thus dropped with the remainder of the production.

Curtiss SB2C Helldivers on patrol over Philippine Sea November 1944
Curtiss SB2C Helldivers of VB-18 on patrol over the Philippine Sea on November 15, 1944. Image: U.S. Navy

By the time it was introduced in significant numbers, however, the USAAF determined that it had no role for dive bombers, and instead employed fighter aircraft, including the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, in a tactical air support role. The USAAF then transferred the 410 completed aircraft to the United States Marine Corps, which were converted to the Marine’s variant, the SB2C-1A.

The USMC Helldivers supported U.S. Army operations in the Philippines and later in the Marshall Islands. However, there were limited options for the Marines to carry out dive bombing runs, and by VJ-Day, there were just five USMC Helldiver squadrons stationed west of Hawaii.

Curtiss Helldiver Foreign Service

Beyond the U.S. military, the UK’s Royal Navy ordered 450, but only 26 were delivered, designated as the Helldiver I. The Royal Navy’s Fleet Arm carried out tests of the aircraft, which reports described it as having “appalling handling,” and none were employed in combat.

SB2C landing on French aircraft carrier Arromanches CVL
An SB2C Helldiver coming in for a landing aboard the French aircraft carrier Arromanches (CVL) in the Gulf of Tonkin, late 1953. Image: U.S. Navy

Australia also ordered 150 Curtiss A-25 Shrikes, which were to be paid for by Washington as part of the Lend-Lease aid. The first 10 were delivered, but the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) followed the lead of the U.S. Army Air Forces in determining that dive bombing was an outmoded tactic and cancelled the remaining order. The remaining aircraft were subsequently transferred to USAAF units.

After World War II, the Royal Hellenic Air Force received 48 SB2C-5 Helldivers from the U.S. Navy, and along with other surplus aircraft, the Helldivers were employed in combat operations during the Greek Civil War (1946-49), and then were later used as photographic aircraft until the late 1950s.

SB2C taking off from French aircraft carrier Arromanches CVL
An SB2C aircraft is guided into take-off position by flight deck crewmembers aboard the French aircraft carrier Arromanches (CVL) in the Gulf of Tonkin, late 1953. Image: U.S. Navy

The French Aeronavale (Naval Aviation) operated approximately 110 SB2C-5 Helldivers in the 1950s, and it was among the aircraft used to support the French military during the infamous Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 in what is now Vietnam. That marked the final use of the dive bomber in combat.

Surviving SB2C Aircraft

Today, only a small handful of SB2C Helldivers survive, including one in the Hellenic Air Force Museum in Greece, while another is in the Royal Thai Air Force Museum, having been in French service.

In the United States, the National Museum of World War II Aviation in Colorado Springs, Colorado, maintains an airworthy example. Likewise, the Commemorative Air Force’s West Texas Wing in Houston, Texas, has a late-production Helldiver that had previously made the rounds at air shows until it experienced a hard landing in 1982. It has been restored to flying condition, but makes fewer appearances.

Bat air to surface guided missile dropped from Curtiss SB2C Helldiver during testing in 1946
A “Bat” air-to-surface guided missile dropped from Curtiss SB2C Helldiver during testing in 1946. Image: U.S. Navy

A Helldiver is now on display at the Fagen Fighters WWII Museum in Granite Falls, Minnesota, while another is at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the National Air and Space Museum in Chantilly, Virginia.

A few other Helldivers are in various states of restoration, and could end up on display soon.

The legacy of the SCB2 Helldiver can be summed up in a June 1945 United States Naval report that stated, “When we needed the SB2C, neither we nor it was ready.” The Navy made do, and it was an aircraft that proved it was better than nothing and perhaps just a bit more.

Categories
This great Nation & Its People War

How the Indian Massacre of 1622 Changed History Forever

Categories
All About Guns Allies

AS Val: The Soviet 9x39mm Silent Assault Rifle

Categories
You have to be kidding, right!?!

Comedian Mocks Armed Citizens Taking On The Government

Categories
Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Yep!

Categories
All About Guns

MP5 – The King of the SMGs

Categories
Art This great Nation & Its People

Young Washington (It looks interesting to me)

Categories
All About Guns Born again Cynic! Paint me surprised by this that’s too bad” You have to be kidding, right!?!

AI Doesn’t Get Guns By Peter Suciu

Artificial intelligence (AI) isn’t good at rendering firearms, and that’s probably not a bad thing, for reasons that will soon be explored. It should also be noted that while AI rendered guns isn’t good yet, it is likely to improve. That might not be a good thing either.

First, we need some background on what exactly AI is, or more accurately, what is generative AI. It has been in development for decades, but it was only in 2022 that generative AI entered the public consciousness with consumer-friendly programs.

AI rendered rifles
Where to start. There’s a LOT wrong going on here. Want to see if you can pick out the worst mistake?

Suffice it to say that generative AI, which includes OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google Gemini, among many others, is the evolution of technology that emerged in the 1960s and is something that is now used every day, again both for good and bad.

That’s not just in how it renders firearms.

AI can create visual artwork, compose music, write papers and stories, and produce other content. Students are using it as a shortcut with homework, and anyone who has been on social media has likely seen images and videos of varying quality. With a few prompts, which are written instructions, AI can generate content that just a few years ago would have taken design teams days, even weeks to produce.

AI generated 1911 pistol
This heavily distorted AI-generated image of a 1911-style pistol shows a weirdly downsized slide assembly and a grip frame with a Luger-like grip angle.

However, there is a lot of “AI slop,” as in low-quality, mass-produced digital content that shows a lack of human effort. Such content is seemingly created — if created is really the right term — by those seeking to flood the Internet to exploit algorithms and to generate quick ad revenue on some platforms.

How AI Works

It is important to understand how AI images are generated. How “intelligent” AI actually is remains a matter of debate.

Generative AI is based on “Large Language Models” (LLMs), which are trained on massive datasets of text and code to recognize patterns. Although they can be effective at parsing data, solving logic puzzles and even summarizing lengthy documents, LLMs can also produce factually incorrect, nonsensical, or made-up information that may seem plausible.

AI generates images by “learning” patterns from billions of existing pictures and their accompanying text descriptions. This process is called diffusion. AI is very good at generating images of well-known objects, where the attributes, including dimensions, color, and other properties, are clearly described.

AI generated rifle World War II
This AI generated image was intended to show U.S. soldiers in the European Theater of World War II. However, the gear, camo and rifles are all inaccurate.

It would seem that AI, therefore, should be good at rendering firearms, but a search of social media tells a very different story. AI-generated images of firearms depict weapons that would be impossible to produce in the real world, much like the fantastical settings created by the late Dutch artist M.C. Escher.

In the case of firearms, LLMs and AI have no shortage of information to draw from, yet generative AI platforms still struggle because they lack a true 3D understanding of the underlying mechanics, resulting in nonsensical attachments, bent barrels, missing triggers, and incorrect magazine placement. AI is still treating firearms as abstract collections of shapes rather than focusing on the functional mechanisms. That has resulted in impossible geometry.

There are now Facebook Groups and Reddit subs devoted to sharing AI-generated firearm images that defy reality. Even when it gets the basics right, AI still misses some key details. Several factors are at play, but the most basic is that generate AI is based on algorithms, and many are far less “intelligent” than it might seem.

Guns And Media — It’s Never Been Accurate

It is further worth taking a step back and remembering that mainstream depictions of firearms have long been questionable. Consider firearms in comic books and video games as just two examples.

AI generated carbines in the hands of hooded men
This AI-generated image has created an interesting amalgamation of a firearm that, at first blush, looks like an AR-style rifle. However, closer examination reveals some AK-like features.

Writers of the former and developers of the latter would routinely ignore basic mechanics, notably magazine capacities and recoil, opting instead to treat firearms as versatile plot devices that are only as accurate or deadly as the story demands at any given moment.

Likewise, the World War II-based comic books of the 1960s didn’t bother to feature realistic depictions of the enemy. The Germans were often presented with big red swastikas on their helmets, carrying weapons that were not an accurate drawing of the MP-40. It was a version that fit the narrative, even if it was far from accurate.

Video games have, in recent years, gone to great lengths to get many details of modern firearms right, including the look and sound, yet other attributes are often still very wrong, notably the weight and recoil. The guns may look correct, but they way they are employed and operate is anything but accurate.

Lack of Instruction?

AI continues to struggle with firearms for some very simple reasons. There is an old saying among computer programmers: “Garbage in, garbage out,” which is the principle that the quality of a system’s output is directly linked to the quality of input. Flawed or low-quality data will produce equally flawed or useless results.

weird AI generated guns
This one is unique in that, while there are some issues with the guns themselves, the real issue is the problem with human anatomy. Can you spot it?

In the case of AI, the “garbage in” is the lack of clear instructions.

“One of the reasons that guns are not properly rendered in AI is in the details,” explained Roger Entner, founder and principal analyst at Recon Analytics. “AI is only as good as the instructions you give it.”

AI often needs more information and details than it is given. It can get the basic shapes right, but it still doesn’t understand the mechanics.

“Guns are such intricate tools, with minuscule differences that are huge,” Entner told The Armory Life. “Gun owners may know these things so intricately, but AI does not.”

That is a key point to consider. There is already massive confusion in the mainstream consciousness about the differences between a commercial AR-15 and the military M16, so how can we expect AI to know better?

AI doesn’t just fall short with firearms, but all sorts of things.

“AI isn’t good at depicting a Cadillac XTS from a Chevrolet Malibu,” said Entner.

There is also the issue of bias, and it is firearm enthusiasts who are likely to notice the rendering problems of AI when it comes to guns.

“AI really does render firearms poorly. Many details range from implausible to outright wrong. But in perspective, AI renders many objects poorly,” noted Dr. Jim Purtilo, associate professor of computer science at the University of Maryland.

“If someone in the firearm community notices it with guns more than with other objects, then this could well be another example of a selective attention bias, which is where people with a decided interest in a given object will be much more inclined to notice when details are wrong. Show a young man the photo of a pretty young girl, and he will never notice what is in the background. ‘What monster?’”

Such a selective attention bias has cropped up in cinema for years.

“Show an old war movie and the gun enthusiast will complain, ‘that’s not a rifle they used,’ the history aficionado will say, ‘that’s not how it happened,’ and the linguists will lament that characters used words that didn’t become common until the modern era. This illustrates our biases,” Purtilo told The Armory Life.

Still, the implausible images result from how AI generates them today. There is ample data on firearm attributes, but few descriptions of how everything connects. AI’s LLMs make a best guess, often with comedic results.

DaVinci AI for gun image generation
The generative AI program known as DaVinci created this sci-fi-looking firearm when prompted to generate “a modern rifle.” It went all-in with a carbon fiber frame and a green accents.

“Pictures are tougher for AI than we understand,” added Entner. “Generic descriptions of something to AI will generate a generic description. It is like asking a five-year-old to draw a Single Action Colt.”

AI is thus like a child, and it may not provide all the details unless pressed. Even then, it may not fully appreciate how things go together without further explanation.

“Said simply, the program is averaging all the details of its training images when deciding which features to include,” said Purtilo. “It might know that a firearm has sights, a shoulder stock, and attachments, but it doesn’t know how these details might depend on one another.

The average sight across all the images it analyzed might have been a scope, the average stock might have a pistol grip, and the average attachment might be a laser pointer — and that is how it gives you a Revolutionary War musket with pistol grip, high power optic, and laser pointer.”

The Barriers of AI

The current technical barriers are just one of the main reasons that AI is bad at rendering firearms. The other is policy. AI developers are already cautious about how AI can be used.

“On the technical side, guns are complex objects with very specific features. Because they are so specific and have many parts that can be rendered incorrectly, it’s easy for a human to identify them as incorrect, as AI is not good at replicating specific weapons,” said Dr. Cliff Lampe, professor of information and associate dean for academic affairs in the School of Information at the University of Michigan.

AI generated assault rifle
This image shows what first appears to be a FAL-style rifle, but with some confusing characteristics regarding the top rail, handguard, magazine and barrel throwing things off.

Lampe, who focuses on the study of misinformation in media, told The Armory Life that the policy reason is that many models specifically list firearms as a type of object to render poorly.

“You can imagine, for instance, that you don’t want to be able to have GenAI [generative artificial intelligence] create specific schematics for firearms. Different models may have different thresholds here as a matter of policy, but all of them will have some safety restrictions built in,” Lampe noted.

Microsoft’s Copilot and ChatGPT are now among the generative AI platforms that won’t even render a firearm if requested. Copilot won’t even render soldiers holding firearms. However, because of the rise in “AI slop,” it may be a good thing that AI can’t generate extremely accurate firearms in videos. No manufacturer would be happy to see their product — a car, gun, or something else — used irresponsibly in an AI-generated video.

For now, we may need to accept that AI doesn’t do guns well, just as comic writers and video game developers missed the mark in the past.

“I don’t know whether AI is more likely to generate silliness with firearms than other objects. But if so, then this may well reflect a selection bias in training materials,” Purtilo continued. “AI models are trained by ingesting a huge volume of raw content. The companies scrape pages from websites, books, social media, and more for this purpose.”

As Lampe noted, there is also the issue of policies that restrict many sites from including firearm images, which could impact how AI learns.

“This limits what material AI has for training,” said Purtilo. “If you can’t depict safe and responsible firearm use on the web, then no AI will be able to render images with safe and responsible use of firearms. Whatever it generates will be inherently gibberish.”

———————————————————————————-

Categories
Uncategorized

Primed and Loaded | Matchlock Arquebus Rate of Fire

Categories
Well I thought it was neat!

Has to be AI in action