"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

"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.