5 ms·

Apples and oranges. We do have driving assistance, fully autonomous vehicles are entirely different. Low hanging fruits are being picked, not wanting a software

by a_imho 10y ago

Apples and oranges. We do have driving assistance, fully autonomous vehicles are entirely different. Low hanging fruits are being picked, not wanting a software to call the shots every time is a valid stand imo.

ubernostrum 10y ago
I think aviation is a good analogy. Most of the automation in a modern airliner, for example, isn't there to make the plane "fly itself" from point A to point B -- it's there to do things machines are good at in order to reduce the workload of the human crew, so they have more time/energy to focus on the things humans are good at. Flight plans, for example, are still decided on by humans, even if a programmed computer carries out many aspects of the plan once decided upon. Same for en-route deviation from the prior plan in order to either avoid bad weather or reach good weather (where "weather" is kind of a broad term, and includes things like winds which would help/hinder an airliner). Although "autoland" is a feature, it's not something that's used every time and can be moderately complex to set up, since a bunch of factors have to be decided/input by a human. And of course the final decision to land or go around is made by a human. Which drives home the fact that automation, in aviation, is a partnership between humans and machines, with humans benefiting and being more productive from offloading some work. A lot of fields should be looking at that as a model.
- adrianN 10y ago
  And yet there are cases where humans interfering with the automation caused a crash.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Yes, humans refusing to trust or work with the automation can cause a disaster. That's not an argument for going fully automated or fully human, it's an argument for developing better cooperation between the humans and the automation.
    - tragomaskhalos 10y ago
      And in many cases it has been poor UI design preventing the humans from recognising or understanding what the machine is telling them, particularly when they are under the extreme stress of an undiagnosed emergency situation.
  - josefx 10y ago
    There are also cases where humans had to completely disable automation to avoid a crash. The systems are not always redundant enough to detect bad information when just two or three inputs are affected.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  > automation, in aviation, is a partnership between humans and machines as a lay person who's visited too many people in hospitals, this sounds like a reasonable description of the modern hospital room as well. * bp and pulse monitors do a job which doctors and nurses used to do manually * non invasive oxygen saturation level monitors do a job which could not be done easily in the past * automated IV drip monitors do a job nurses used to have to do manually * wrist bands with bar codes and an accompanying scanner coupled to a database serve as a "second opinion" or double check on the medication a patient is being given etc

by a_imho 10y ago

ubernostrum 10y ago

I think aviation is a good analogy. Most of the automation in a modern airliner, for example, isn't there to make the plane "fly itself" from point A to point B -- it's there to do things machines are good at in order to reduce the workload of the human crew, so they have more time/energy to focus on the things humans are good at. Flight plans, for example, are still decided on by humans, even if a programmed computer carries out many aspects of the plan once decided upon. Same for en-route deviation from the prior plan in order to either avoid bad weather or reach good weather (where "weather" is kind of a broad term, and includes things like winds which would help/hinder an airliner). Although "autoland" is a feature, it's not something that's used every time and can be moderately complex to set up, since a bunch of factors have to be decided/input by a human. And of course the final decision to land or go around is made by a human. Which drives home the fact that automation, in aviation, is a partnership between humans and machines, with humans benefiting and being more productive from offloading some work. A lot of fields should be looking at that as a model.

adrianN 10y ago
And yet there are cases where humans interfering with the automation caused a crash.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Yes, humans refusing to trust or work with the automation can cause a disaster. That's not an argument for going fully automated or fully human, it's an argument for developing better cooperation between the humans and the automation.
  - tragomaskhalos 10y ago
    And in many cases it has been poor UI design preventing the humans from recognising or understanding what the machine is telling them, particularly when they are under the extreme stress of an undiagnosed emergency situation.
- josefx 10y ago
  There are also cases where humans had to completely disable automation to avoid a crash. The systems are not always redundant enough to detect bad information when just two or three inputs are affected.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
> automation, in aviation, is a partnership between humans and machines as a lay person who's visited too many people in hospitals, this sounds like a reasonable description of the modern hospital room as well. * bp and pulse monitors do a job which doctors and nurses used to do manually * non invasive oxygen saturation level monitors do a job which could not be done easily in the past * automated IV drip monitors do a job nurses used to have to do manually * wrist bands with bar codes and an accompanying scanner coupled to a database serve as a "second opinion" or double check on the medication a patient is being given etc