3 ms·

Every automated System needs a very well trained and calm operator when it all goes south. Thats the difference between e.g. Chernobyl and Fukushima/Three Mile

Every automated System needs a very well trained and calm operator when it all goes south. Thats the difference between e.g. Chernobyl and Fukushima/Three Mile Island. While very bad accidents, the last fail-save, the humans, didnt fuck it completely and spectacularly in the latter two cases.

throwanem 10y ago
Chernobyl isn't a very good example of automation failure; responsibility for that disaster lies entirely with human beings from start to finish. Wikipedia's summary is solid, and rather than excerpt it here I'll just point you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Accident .
- exar0815 10y ago
  Yeah, my comment doesnt make that much sense, reading it again. That was just an example how badly trained personnel can make any accident worse, justifying a very well trained operator for crucial automated systems.
dougk16 10y ago
"Every automated System needs a very well trained and calm operator when it all goes south." I think that's sort of the paradox discussed in the article, or at least one that comes to my mind. The more automation you have in aggregate in society the less you'll have trained humans capable of responding when it goes south. Even individuals that keep up with regulated training and certification requirements will get lazy if 20 years pass without an incident. But then the flipside is that hey 20 years passed without incident. It will be interesting to see where the equilibrium is reached, especially considering that that one-in-twenty-year incident by a machine will probably be weighted just as high in public perception as 20 years of human screw ups.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Brings to mind Burke's Connections series. Specifically the first episode, where he presents all the technology needed to power New York City. Damn it, ever so often i sit in near awe that i can be typing this message and expect it to reach the server etc. The number of wires and circuits that need to work properly for that to happen is staggering.

throwanem 10y ago

Chernobyl isn't a very good example of automation failure; responsibility for that disaster lies entirely with human beings from start to finish. Wikipedia's summary is solid, and rather than excerpt it here I'll just point you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Accident .

exar0815 10y ago
Yeah, my comment doesnt make that much sense, reading it again. That was just an example how badly trained personnel can make any accident worse, justifying a very well trained operator for crucial automated systems.

dougk16 10y ago

"Every automated System needs a very well trained and calm operator when it all goes south." I think that's sort of the paradox discussed in the article, or at least one that comes to my mind. The more automation you have in aggregate in society the less you'll have trained humans capable of responding when it goes south. Even individuals that keep up with regulated training and certification requirements will get lazy if 20 years pass without an incident. But then the flipside is that hey 20 years passed without incident. It will be interesting to see where the equilibrium is reached, especially considering that that one-in-twenty-year incident by a machine will probably be weighted just as high in public perception as 20 years of human screw ups.

digi_owl 10y ago
Brings to mind Burke's Connections series. Specifically the first episode, where he presents all the technology needed to power New York City. Damn it, ever so often i sit in near awe that i can be typing this message and expect it to reach the server etc. The number of wires and circuits that need to work properly for that to happen is staggering.