3 ms·

Instead of autopilot, think of this as (or should be) more like fly-by-wire systems in every modern fighter jet. The computer reads the pilot's inputs and trans

Instead of autopilot, think of this as (or should be) more like fly-by-wire systems in every modern fighter jet. The computer reads the pilot's inputs and translates them to the most effective possible control adjustments, making many more changes than a pilot would be able to make even given the controls. Or maybe the tool should be limited to retrospective evaluation of doctors' decisions. Basically an automated peer review.

FussyZeus 8y ago
I would argue against this one, simply because of the Airbus incident from some time ago where to avoid pushing feedback into the controls, the plane was designed to average out the inputs from the two pilots. The older, more experienced pilot was attempting to maneuver the plane in such a way to correct their problem (I believe it was a stall) and the younger pilot was panicking and attempting the opposite maneuver, the plane averaged it to roughly no course adjustment, and they hit a mountainside. I'm all for automating driving and other such tasks once the computers are ready, but until we know they're at least most likely ready to do it, I want the ability to turn it off and do it myself. (And frankly, I want that ability anyway because I genuinely love driving and it makes me sad to think someday I won't be able to do it.)
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  For reference, I believe this is the crash you're referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 The fly-by-wire control system ordinarily prevents stalls, but it had disengaged due to an iced over sensor and was operating without stall protection. The plane stalled at 38,000 feet and fell into the ocean. They should have had plenty of time to correct the stall, but one pilot was pulling back his control stick (the opposite of what they needed to do), and since the two sticks aren't physically linked the other pilot didn't know he was doing that. It's one of the topics discussed in the podcast that I linked above.
  - FussyZeus 8y ago
    Yeah that's the one.
wlesieutre 8y ago
Even if you let the computer run the show wholesale it could work out net positive. Autopilot might cause problems, but it might also prevent twice as many accidents that would have been caused by pilot error. We're still in pretty early days here, so I don't know if Watson's advice is at a point where that could be true. In the meantime, I do like the idea of having an unaided doctor and the computer program evaluate it independently, then afterward say "Ok, let's see what the computer thought" before coming to any final conclusions. Maybe it'd help avoid any dangerous recommendations. Or maybe people would say "Well the computer has a lot more data than me, it's probably right." I think that depends on whether the differences are errors similar to what a human would make, or if they're the "oh my god how did it even come up with this result" nonsensical error that are easily spotted by human review.

FussyZeus 8y ago

I would argue against this one, simply because of the Airbus incident from some time ago where to avoid pushing feedback into the controls, the plane was designed to average out the inputs from the two pilots. The older, more experienced pilot was attempting to maneuver the plane in such a way to correct their problem (I believe it was a stall) and the younger pilot was panicking and attempting the opposite maneuver, the plane averaged it to roughly no course adjustment, and they hit a mountainside. I'm all for automating driving and other such tasks once the computers are ready, but until we know they're at least most likely ready to do it, I want the ability to turn it off and do it myself. (And frankly, I want that ability anyway because I genuinely love driving and it makes me sad to think someday I won't be able to do it.)

wlesieutre 8y ago
For reference, I believe this is the crash you're referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 The fly-by-wire control system ordinarily prevents stalls, but it had disengaged due to an iced over sensor and was operating without stall protection. The plane stalled at 38,000 feet and fell into the ocean. They should have had plenty of time to correct the stall, but one pilot was pulling back his control stick (the opposite of what they needed to do), and since the two sticks aren't physically linked the other pilot didn't know he was doing that. It's one of the topics discussed in the podcast that I linked above.
- FussyZeus 8y ago
  Yeah that's the one.

wlesieutre 8y ago

Even if you let the computer run the show wholesale it could work out net positive. Autopilot might cause problems, but it might also prevent twice as many accidents that would have been caused by pilot error. We're still in pretty early days here, so I don't know if Watson's advice is at a point where that could be true. In the meantime, I do like the idea of having an unaided doctor and the computer program evaluate it independently, then afterward say "Ok, let's see what the computer thought" before coming to any final conclusions. Maybe it'd help avoid any dangerous recommendations. Or maybe people would say "Well the computer has a lot more data than me, it's probably right." I think that depends on whether the differences are errors similar to what a human would make, or if they're the "oh my god how did it even come up with this result" nonsensical error that are easily spotted by human review.