4 ms·

> He is sub 20 years. I'm thinking more like 40-50 mark. Perspective: * 60 years ago, we didn't have highways. * 45 years ago, seat belts weren't required.

> He is sub 20 years. I'm thinking more like 40-50 mark. Perspective: * 60 years ago, we didn't have highways. * 45 years ago, seat belts weren't required. * 40 years ago, we expected engines to last 10s of thousands of miles. We didn't really understand crumple zones. Open containers and even drinking while driving. * 30 years, we added fuel injection, computers, and airbags. * 20 years ago, the hybrid car, better fuel efficiency, and side airbags Imagine what we'll know tomorrow.

notahacker 11y ago
Perspective: nearly 50 years ago we did have Category IIIa instrument landing systems in commercial jet aircraft capable of landing without pilot input. We had reliable gyroscopic autopilot capable of keeping aircraft on a set course long before that. Vast sums of money have been sunk into developing exceptionally reliable avionics systems since then. Passenger carrying aircraft still all have a pilot or two.
- dorfsmay 11y ago
  Pilots on modern large aircraft are more like managers that tell the aircraft what to do, and do fly them to keep with minimum legal requirements (minimy numbers of landinds etc...)
- Gracana 11y ago
  And in the US, don't pilots still have to do the landing part?
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  And to complete the thought: the main reason why human pilots are still on all those aircraft is because... the automated/computerized systems still can't really make decisions that match what the humans can do. So the computer is really great at maintaining heading, altitude and speed for a set period of time, but really bad at deciding which heading, which altitude and which speed, and for how long (the best you can do that I'm aware of is have a human lay out the desired route and punch that into the FMC, and then all bets are off if conditions change along the way, and the humans will have to decide what to tell the plane to do again).
  - msellout 11y ago
    And those decisions themselves could be easily automated, but people choose not to. There's a checklist for making those decisions. If you can write a checklist, you can write code. And for when there's not a checklist, then you can pick randomly, because that's what the human is essentially doing.
    - acbabis 11y ago
      A human can notice when new evidence becomes relevant. If something isn't already on a computer's checklist when it becomes relevant, the human has a better chance of deciding what to do. EDIT: I understand that there is research going into making computers recognize "novel" situations. My comment only applies to algorithms that contain "checklists".
      - msellout 11y ago
        No, then you need to get meta. There's a checklist for identifying "novel" information and reacting. By checklist I mean algorithm. Sure, it can be tough to tease out the algorithm from the minds of current pilots. Luckily in aviation we already have training manuals. In other domains it'd be tougher to know when we're done extracting knowledge from humans.
    - rimantas 11y ago
      How close we are to the autopilot which would safely land a plane with engines off on the Hudson?
      - peteretep 11y ago
        a) A human pilot who does combines exceptional luck with unusual skill b) Said human pilot was aided considerably by the airplane's autopilot system c) I'm not sure why you think software would find this particularly challenging?
        notahacker 11y ago
- taneq 11y ago
  So you're agreeing with GP poster that the legal objections are what will prevent self-driving cars on a large scale?
Animats 11y ago
"60 years ago, we didn't have highways." Not quite. Here's the US highway system in 1955.[1] Construction of the US Interstate Highway System started in 1956. [1] http://www.mappery.com/map-of/Pre-Interstate-US-Highway-System-Map http://www.mappery.com/map-of/Pre-Interstate-US-Highway-Syst...
- epimetheus 11y ago
  He probably meant Interstates, and 1956 is 60 years ago, which is why I'm guessing that. Interstate 5 (Seattle portion) was only completed in 1969[0] so depending on where you are, it could be significantly less. [0] - http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9393 http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&...
  - Animats 11y ago
    Good point. I-80 wasn't complete coast-to-coast until 1986. There were gaps in the Western sections for years. That was the first coast-to-coast Interstate, the old Lincoln Highway route. I-40, the "Route 66" route, was completed even later.
agumonkey 11y ago
All these were some sort of win win, not hard sells, low resistance. SDV are rotating the notion of driving and the economy around it, car dealers, oil companies. It won't be the same game at all in my view.
EdwardDiego 11y ago
> 60 years ago, we didn't have highways. What? > 30 years, we added fuel injection, computers, and airbags. But we knew about them for a lot longer than that. Fuel injection was used in aircraft during WWII.

notahacker 11y ago

Perspective: nearly 50 years ago we did have Category IIIa instrument landing systems in commercial jet aircraft capable of landing without pilot input. We had reliable gyroscopic autopilot capable of keeping aircraft on a set course long before that. Vast sums of money have been sunk into developing exceptionally reliable avionics systems since then. Passenger carrying aircraft still all have a pilot or two.

dorfsmay 11y ago
Pilots on modern large aircraft are more like managers that tell the aircraft what to do, and do fly them to keep with minimum legal requirements (minimy numbers of landinds etc...)
Gracana 11y ago
And in the US, don't pilots still have to do the landing part?
ubernostrum 11y ago
And to complete the thought: the main reason why human pilots are still on all those aircraft is because... the automated/computerized systems still can't really make decisions that match what the humans can do. So the computer is really great at maintaining heading, altitude and speed for a set period of time, but really bad at deciding which heading, which altitude and which speed, and for how long (the best you can do that I'm aware of is have a human lay out the desired route and punch that into the FMC, and then all bets are off if conditions change along the way, and the humans will have to decide what to tell the plane to do again).
- msellout 11y ago
  And those decisions themselves could be easily automated, but people choose not to. There's a checklist for making those decisions. If you can write a checklist, you can write code. And for when there's not a checklist, then you can pick randomly, because that's what the human is essentially doing.
  - acbabis 11y ago
    A human can notice when new evidence becomes relevant. If something isn't already on a computer's checklist when it becomes relevant, the human has a better chance of deciding what to do. EDIT: I understand that there is research going into making computers recognize "novel" situations. My comment only applies to algorithms that contain "checklists".
    - msellout 11y ago
      No, then you need to get meta. There's a checklist for identifying "novel" information and reacting. By checklist I mean algorithm. Sure, it can be tough to tease out the algorithm from the minds of current pilots. Luckily in aviation we already have training manuals. In other domains it'd be tougher to know when we're done extracting knowledge from humans.
  - rimantas 11y ago
    How close we are to the autopilot which would safely land a plane with engines off on the Hudson?
    - peteretep 11y ago
      a) A human pilot who does combines exceptional luck with unusual skill b) Said human pilot was aided considerably by the airplane's autopilot system c) I'm not sure why you think software would find this particularly challenging?
      - notahacker 11y ago
taneq 11y ago
So you're agreeing with GP poster that the legal objections are what will prevent self-driving cars on a large scale?

Animats 11y ago

"60 years ago, we didn't have highways." Not quite. Here's the US highway system in 1955.[1] Construction of the US Interstate Highway System started in 1956. [1] http://www.mappery.com/map-of/Pre-Interstate-US-Highway-System-Map http://www.mappery.com/map-of/Pre-Interstate-US-Highway-Syst...

epimetheus 11y ago
He probably meant Interstates, and 1956 is 60 years ago, which is why I'm guessing that. Interstate 5 (Seattle portion) was only completed in 1969[0] so depending on where you are, it could be significantly less. [0] - http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9393 http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&...
- Animats 11y ago
  Good point. I-80 wasn't complete coast-to-coast until 1986. There were gaps in the Western sections for years. That was the first coast-to-coast Interstate, the old Lincoln Highway route. I-40, the "Route 66" route, was completed even later.

agumonkey 11y ago

All these were some sort of win win, not hard sells, low resistance. SDV are rotating the notion of driving and the economy around it, car dealers, oil companies. It won't be the same game at all in my view.

EdwardDiego 11y ago

> 60 years ago, we didn't have highways. What? > 30 years, we added fuel injection, computers, and airbags. But we knew about them for a lot longer than that. Fuel injection was used in aircraft during WWII.