#Xonotic force human teams how to#
Application This research contributes to our understanding of how to make autonomy a good team player. Conclusion Though there is potential for a synthetic agent to function as a full-fledged teammate, further advances in autonomy are needed to improve team-level dynamics in HAT teams. Experimenter teams performed better across all other measures compared to control and synthetic teams. Results Synthetic teams performed as well at the mission level as control (all human) teams but processed targets less efficiently. In 2007 the US Army began implementation of the Human Terrain System (HTS), which trained and deployed academically trained social science teams to Iraq and Afghanistan in support of military operations, a controversial attempt to soften the military’s approach to counterinsurgency. Artificial intelligence and robotic technologies have grown in sophistication and reach. Measures of team performance, target processing efficiency, team situation awareness, and team verbal behaviors were analyzed. Methods In an unmanned aerial system (UAS) context, a comparison was made among three types of three-member teams: (1) synthetic teams in which the pilot role is assigned to a synthetic teammate, (2) control teams in which the pilot was an inexperienced human, and (3) experimenter teams in which an experimenter served as an experienced pilot. Further research must be conducted to better understand how all-human teams compare to HAT. Background Although an extensive literature on human-automation interaction exists, much less is known about HAT in which humans and autonomous agents interact as coordinated units. Objective Three different team configurations are compared with the goal of better understanding human-autonomy teaming (HAT).
0 kommentar(er)
