The rise of AI tools could push VATSIM to innovate further, perhaps by enhancing its platform, improving accessibility, or offering hybrid solutions that combine human and AI interactions.
Might we see such developments in the short/medium term?
This sounds exactly like what an AI would write!!
VATSIM is about talking to a human, not AI.
4 Likes
Due to prohibitive cost and compute requirements, there are no current plans to offer any AI functionality on the network.
If you’re looking for AI ATC, there are a couple different popular offerings outside VATSIM, however they both require ongoing payment.
2 Likes
Want to see how good AI is? Give Chat GPT a few Grade eleven math word problems and watch how it fails to manage.
I asked ChatCPT about requesting clearance and here’s what it said.
I want to fly a plane from New York to Los Angeles. What wording to I use to request clearance and what clearance would be given to me?
Pilot:
“New York Clearance, N123AB, request IFR clearance to Los Angeles, ready to copy.”
ATC:
“N123AB, cleared to Los Angeles International Airport via the Kennedy Five departure, then as filed. Climb and maintain 5,000 feet, expect FL350 ten minutes after departure. Departure frequency 125.7, squawk 4213.”
Pilot reads back:
“Cleared to Los Angeles via Kennedy Five, then as filed. Climb 5,000, expect FL350 in ten, departure 125.7, squawk 4213, N123AB.”
Do the same for a flight from London Heathrow to Edinburgh
Pilot:
“Heathrow Clearance, N123AB, request IFR clearance to Edinburgh, ready to copy.”
ATC:
“N123AB, cleared to Edinburgh via the BUZAD ONE FOXTROT departure, then flight planned route. Climb to 6,000 feet, expect FL300 ten minutes after departure. Departure frequency 118.82, squawk 4623.”
Pilot Reads Back:
“Cleared to Edinburgh via BUZAD ONE FOXTROT, then as filed. Climb 6,000, expect FL300 in ten, departure 118.82, squawk 4623, N123AB.”
Do the same for a flight from Sydney to Singapore
Pilot:
“Sydney Clearance, N123AB, request IFR clearance to Singapore, ready to copy.”
ATC:
“N123AB, cleared to Singapore Changi via MARLN THREE departure, then flight planned route. Maintain 5,000 feet, expect FL370 ten minutes after departure. Departure frequency 124.4, squawk 3124.”
Pilot Reads Back:
“Cleared to Singapore via MARLN THREE departure, then flight planned route. Maintain 5,000, expect FL370 in ten, departure 124.4, squawk 3124, N123AB.”
The second and third examples are so wrong they are laughable.
In every example, our pilot ends his request with “ready to copy”. That’s enough example of wrong right there; don’t even need the rest.
I’ll bet if you asked it how to check in with a new center, its example would use the phrase “with you” too. 
1 Like
First one wasn’t much better given that it would be Kennedy Clearance, not New York Clearance.
Still issuing FAA style clearances outside of US - «expect FL300 ten minutes after departure». In the UK you must report aircraft type when requesting and the clearance given only contains SID + squawk.
Playing with AI for a while, it is clearly lacking alot of foundations in regards of aviation - often mixing FAA and ICAO rules or outright providing you with the incorrect info.
Here is some AI usage 
AI-Powered Flight Recommendation Service for VATSIM - #7 by 1217062
I’m an AI engineer working for a big company and these things are very costly, not only if you utilize off-the-shelve LLMs like those offered by big companies but also if you decide to build something from scratch on your own. Just the example I linked above takes a lot of work (and it’s not even using LLMs, but the infra behind is huge and also costly, let along the expertise needed to build them from scratch). Notice I let out the need for VTT (voice-to-text) and TTV (text-to-voice), which are neither trivial nor cheap.