3 ms·

Though one could say that this was due to too little automation rather than too much -- the default behavior could be for the ship to steer itself away from an

Though one could say that this was due to too little automation rather than too much -- the default behavior could be for the ship to steer itself away from another vessel or shallow water unless overridden (setting off alarms that this action is being taken) My $30K car does a fair job of nudging the steering wheel if it thinks I'm running off the road, surely a $2B battleship could have some basic collision avoidance capability too.

qserasera 7y ago
Unfortunately military ships are expensive and have strict schedules. You may be able to drive your car to a shop any day to diagnose a sensor error but military vessels dont have that luxury. To my knowledge the detection systems (for detecting ships ect) were either not calibrated/failed making a ship impossible to detect. There may have been a serious lack of training spotting sensor failure too. The ship was due for repairs and had been put off. Also, according to SOP there should have been someone making rounds and looking out and identifying ships. Because honestly how do you miss a huge cargo ship lit up like a Christmas tree There were multiple critical failures leading to the crash. Bad training, poor maintenance, and lax procedural compliance.
joejerryronnie 7y ago
The problem with automation is that it works perfectly until it runs into that edge case which nobody thought about. The problem with the real world is that there are infinity edge cases.
- pferde 7y ago
  I'd like to use this in my .signature.
- RomanBob 7y ago
  > there are infinity edge cases. this is simply not true. there are finite particles in discrete space so there's no infinity here.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I would call it O(N!) with N increasing over time opposed to infinite and essentially something everything technically faces automated or not - it is just those lacking agency cannot change deliberately. Not because it isn't effectively beyond linear counting or coverage but because it describes how it grows - in different permutations. Especially with actual other actors involved and literal arms races. Sure your expensive plate armor may stop blades, arrows, and even current musket fire but would it stop cannonfire?
- jshowa3 7y ago
  All of which 95% of those edge cases are most likely programmed leading to saving humans countless times in the most situations to the point they don't even realize it. Why do you think flying is so safe? It's because of automation and redundant systems. Do things go wrong? Yes. But imagine how many things would go wrong if you gave people a 15,000 line check list.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  I didn't mean for the automation to be primary - I meant for it to be a llast-ditch collision avoidance system, like the steering wheel nudge on my car. Humans should still pilot the ship, but if they are going to let a collision happen, then the ship should try to avoid it even without human intervention (unless they press the "I know what I'm doing and want to do it anyway" button after the ship sounds the alarm saying it's taking evasive action) So the system doesn't have to handle all of the edge cases, just the "We're on a collision course with that ship ahead" case.

qserasera 7y ago

Unfortunately military ships are expensive and have strict schedules. You may be able to drive your car to a shop any day to diagnose a sensor error but military vessels dont have that luxury. To my knowledge the detection systems (for detecting ships ect) were either not calibrated/failed making a ship impossible to detect. There may have been a serious lack of training spotting sensor failure too. The ship was due for repairs and had been put off. Also, according to SOP there should have been someone making rounds and looking out and identifying ships. Because honestly how do you miss a huge cargo ship lit up like a Christmas tree There were multiple critical failures leading to the crash. Bad training, poor maintenance, and lax procedural compliance.

joejerryronnie 7y ago

The problem with automation is that it works perfectly until it runs into that edge case which nobody thought about. The problem with the real world is that there are infinity edge cases.

pferde 7y ago
I'd like to use this in my .signature.
RomanBob 7y ago
> there are infinity edge cases. this is simply not true. there are finite particles in discrete space so there's no infinity here.
Nasrudith 7y ago
I would call it O(N!) with N increasing over time opposed to infinite and essentially something everything technically faces automated or not - it is just those lacking agency cannot change deliberately. Not because it isn't effectively beyond linear counting or coverage but because it describes how it grows - in different permutations. Especially with actual other actors involved and literal arms races. Sure your expensive plate armor may stop blades, arrows, and even current musket fire but would it stop cannonfire?
jshowa3 7y ago
All of which 95% of those edge cases are most likely programmed leading to saving humans countless times in the most situations to the point they don't even realize it. Why do you think flying is so safe? It's because of automation and redundant systems. Do things go wrong? Yes. But imagine how many things would go wrong if you gave people a 15,000 line check list.
Johnny555 7y ago
I didn't mean for the automation to be primary - I meant for it to be a llast-ditch collision avoidance system, like the steering wheel nudge on my car. Humans should still pilot the ship, but if they are going to let a collision happen, then the ship should try to avoid it even without human intervention (unless they press the "I know what I'm doing and want to do it anyway" button after the ship sounds the alarm saying it's taking evasive action) So the system doesn't have to handle all of the edge cases, just the "We're on a collision course with that ship ahead" case.