4 ms·
I find this post extremely one sided. It seems that the author is too busy to praise the machines without trying to determine the bad side of using all automati
by funkyy 10y ago
I find this post extremely one sided. It seems that the author is too busy to praise the machines without trying to determine the bad side of using all automatic systems in such a sensitive place like an airport.
Imagine a hack attack or bug (it happens) that causes all terminals to stop working for 12 hours on the airport like JFK. What would be the losses? Would it be still worth it?
In my opinion AI should complement humans, not substitute them. The word is not working in A and B scenarios only, there is always more options.
- ceejayoz 10y ago> Imagine a hack attack or bug (it happens) that causes all terminals to stop working for 12 hours on the airport like JFK. What would be the losses? Would it be still worth it? We already get hours-long mainframe outages, not to mention weather shutting down airports entirely. The system survives just fine.
- richardwhiuk 10y agoWe also already get strikes.
- ccrfg 10y ago> We already get hours-long mainframe outages I often wonder if those outages aren't sometimes caused by hackers to begin with. Publicizing them as hacks would only serve to cause panic, and let other hackers know how vulnerable their systems are.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- andyfleming 10y agoThe problem with this argument is that there is already dependency on the systems. If a system is down, travel may be halted regardless of if there are human staff members present.
- dagw 10y agoMaybe it's a European thing, but I've spent more time delayed in airports due to humans striking than I have due to computer systems being down.