3 ms·
The difference between autopilot and examples you mentioned is that autopilot can decrease safety. If it works correctly 99.9% of the time, you get used to it a
by takeda 9y ago
The difference between autopilot and examples you mentioned is that autopilot can decrease safety. If it works correctly 99.9% of the time, you get used to it and when 0.1% arrive you will cause accident, because you weren't paying attention.
- wheelerwj 9y agothe same can be said for the examples i gave. if you get used to being vaccinated but forget your boosters before traveling to a new part of the world, should you have forgone your vaccinations altogether? of course not. if you have technology that makes it safer to drive 99.9% of the time but you expect it to cover for you when you're not paying attention, should you disregard the benefits of the other 99.9% of the time?
- function_seven 9y agoThis is not a good analogy. Being vaccinated is strictly better than not being vaccinated, even if you don’t get your boosters. It’s not settled yet whether a three-nines level of automation is strictly better than zero automation. It’s entirely possible that this level of automation is good enough to convince most users of its infallibility, but not good enough to reduce the statistical accident or fatality rate. Perfectly safe 99.9% and highly dangerous the other 0.1% may be overall more hazardous than human-level safe 100% of the time. Or it may not. I’m not making a claim either way. But it’s not a crazy notion that it may not be. More data is needed. I’m cool with that data being collected in the real world with real drivers. Gotta crack some eggs...
- wheelerwj 9y agomore data IS needed. but some automation is indeed better than no automation. this has been settled time and time again. computers are more accurate, more precise, and don't get tired, sick, or drunk.
- honestoHeminway 9y agoThe airplanes of this world demonstrate this.
- roenxi 9y agoAirplanes generally somewhat safer than driving. By quite a margin. Without consulting the literature, it just seems easy to believe that machine-like consistency 99.9% of the time is more important to safety than confusion in the 0.1%.
- IanCal 9y agoIt really depends on what 0.1%. If the car fails to detect one in a thousand cars in front of you, or one in a thousand corners, I can see that being highly dangerous. Let's say you change lane 5 times while commuting. That's 50 times per week. Now, are you going to pay attention well enough that you catch it twice a year just before it pulls out right into another car? Perhaps likening it to having another person driving you would be good. If you were given a perfect chauffeur, except with the knowledge that they'll drive straight through one in a thousand red lights with no warning, are you confident you'll catch them?
- vultour 9y agoIMHO airplanes demonstrate the exact opposite. A plane can not only potentially fly the entire flight path on its own, it can also autonomously land. The reason why pilots still hand fly planes is 1) because the whole process is not automatic and you are still receiving directions from an ATC, and 2) to keep their proficiency in controlling the plane. Numerous times I've seen pilots complain that their employer requires autopilot to be used wherever possible, while they would like to fly the plane by themselves occasionally. If we polished off the autopilot to also handle take-off and taxi, and installed it in every single plane that exists, I'm pretty sure the entire aviation industry could be completely automated.
- DanBC 9y agoThat may well not be a decrease in safety, considering how poorly most people drive.