4 ms·

> a manager actively observing for engagement Maybe this is the key.

by Tempest1981 6y ago

watwut 6y ago
The other ones are necessary too. The issue is that people will loose attention - it is not possible for humans to not loose attention when nothing is happening for long time. And even when things are happening, it is not possible for humans to keep attention all the time. The control is one thing, but manager can prevent you to look at phone and manager is creating interruption from monotony. The rotation is necessary to deal with human hardware which requires breaks (and moving car requries faster responses then drowning person). The overlapping zones deal with fact that breaks and manager being present is still not enough.
- randycupertino 6y ago
  > it is not possible for humans to not loose attention when nothing is happening for long time. And even when things are happening, it is not possible for humans to keep attention all the time. But they could watch the road instead of watching their phones. It would be a pretty simple fix- have the backup driver keep their phone in the back of the car. I've had jobs where we had to lock our phones in lockers at the start of our shift, it's not uncommon. Also, disagree that moving car requires faster responses than drowning person- kids often gently slip under the water in an instant and it's generally quiet and fast, never a big splash or dog paddling "help me!" commotion like in the movies. And longer without oxygen to the brain can lead to more permanent brain death, so I'd say both activities require equal vigilance.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > ut they could watch the road instead of watching their phones. It would be a pretty simple fix- have the backup driver keep their phone in the back of the car. Sure, but that is just baindaid for one instance of problem. Something that allows management to pretend they dealt with it, while not actually trying to solve the problem. Typical human will likely start daydream without the phone or otherwise loose attention. > Also, disagree that moving car requires faster responses than drowning person- kids often gently slip under the water in an instant and it's generally quiet and fast, never a big splash or dog paddling "help me!" commotion like in the movies. And longer without oxygen to the brain can lead to more permanent brain death, so I'd say both activities require equal vigilance. That does not require split second attention and quick reflexive reaction. The permanent brain damage does not happen because kid was under water for 5 seconds, car crash can happen under one second.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  > it is not possible for humans to not loose attention when nothing is happening for long time. I really don't understand this assertion. Having to babysit auto-driving cars in their development phase is well within the realm of what humans are capable of. The driver booted Netflix, navigated to an episode, and watched in on their phone for the same reason anyone would do it at work: not because they were driven to a boredom so intense that it was the only way to get a grip but because they simply thought "what harm could it do?" These replies acting like a slightly boring job is doomed to this outcome remind me of those ridiculous articles that stereotype millennials as 30yo-children so spoiled that they're unwilling to do the simplest of jobs. "Millennials refuse to be trash collectors and don't understand how someone could do it. 'Humans aren't made to pick up trash,' John, 32 years old, told our newscaster. 'Else we would have tongs for hands! I don't even think it's possible.'"
  - curryst 6y ago
    So you think that humans can sit there and simply watch, 8 hours a day for the rest of their lives, and not lose focus ever? I have yet to encounter a system built on that premise that wasn't woefully ineffective. Which is not to mention that these workers have ridiculously weak motivations. They create nothing, spending hundreds of hours merely testing out someone else's work. They exist in a field with very little upward mobility, since they are effectively the only non-skilled labor at their companies. Even if there were upward mobility, they work in a field where their job is to help eliminate their job. The only thing offsetting that is that the pay is slightly better than equivalent options. I can understand why people lose attention driving these cars around.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > Having to babysit auto-driving cars in their development phase is well within the realm of what humans are capable of. The argument is that no, it is not, even if you never open netflix you will loose attention. Rhat does not make Netflix ok. But this driver having netflix open does not imply that people without netflix wont loose attention. They will. Your second paragraph is both strawman and nonsense. Before millenials, people were not able to hold attention while nothing was happening. Which is why train drivers have protocols to prevent loss of attention and so do lifeguards. The whole "if you admit common human limitation out loud yoi are weak and spoiled is either arrogance or manipulative argument.

> a manager actively observing for engagement Maybe this is the key.

The other ones are necessary too. The issue is that people will loose attention - it is not possible for humans to not loose attention when nothing is happening for long time. And even when things are happening, it is not possible for humans to keep attention all the time. The control is one thing, but manager can prevent you to look at phone and manager is creating interruption from monotony. The rotation is necessary to deal with human hardware which requires breaks (and moving car requries faster responses then drowning person). The overlapping zones deal with fact that breaks and manager being present is still not enough.

randycupertino 6y ago
> it is not possible for humans to not loose attention when nothing is happening for long time. And even when things are happening, it is not possible for humans to keep attention all the time. But they could watch the road instead of watching their phones. It would be a pretty simple fix- have the backup driver keep their phone in the back of the car. I've had jobs where we had to lock our phones in lockers at the start of our shift, it's not uncommon. Also, disagree that moving car requires faster responses than drowning person- kids often gently slip under the water in an instant and it's generally quiet and fast, never a big splash or dog paddling "help me!" commotion like in the movies. And longer without oxygen to the brain can lead to more permanent brain death, so I'd say both activities require equal vigilance.
- watwut 6y ago
  > ut they could watch the road instead of watching their phones. It would be a pretty simple fix- have the backup driver keep their phone in the back of the car. Sure, but that is just baindaid for one instance of problem. Something that allows management to pretend they dealt with it, while not actually trying to solve the problem. Typical human will likely start daydream without the phone or otherwise loose attention. > Also, disagree that moving car requires faster responses than drowning person- kids often gently slip under the water in an instant and it's generally quiet and fast, never a big splash or dog paddling "help me!" commotion like in the movies. And longer without oxygen to the brain can lead to more permanent brain death, so I'd say both activities require equal vigilance. That does not require split second attention and quick reflexive reaction. The permanent brain damage does not happen because kid was under water for 5 seconds, car crash can happen under one second.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
> it is not possible for humans to not loose attention when nothing is happening for long time. I really don't understand this assertion. Having to babysit auto-driving cars in their development phase is well within the realm of what humans are capable of. The driver booted Netflix, navigated to an episode, and watched in on their phone for the same reason anyone would do it at work: not because they were driven to a boredom so intense that it was the only way to get a grip but because they simply thought "what harm could it do?" These replies acting like a slightly boring job is doomed to this outcome remind me of those ridiculous articles that stereotype millennials as 30yo-children so spoiled that they're unwilling to do the simplest of jobs. "Millennials refuse to be trash collectors and don't understand how someone could do it. 'Humans aren't made to pick up trash,' John, 32 years old, told our newscaster. 'Else we would have tongs for hands! I don't even think it's possible.'"
- curryst 6y ago
  So you think that humans can sit there and simply watch, 8 hours a day for the rest of their lives, and not lose focus ever? I have yet to encounter a system built on that premise that wasn't woefully ineffective. Which is not to mention that these workers have ridiculously weak motivations. They create nothing, spending hundreds of hours merely testing out someone else's work. They exist in a field with very little upward mobility, since they are effectively the only non-skilled labor at their companies. Even if there were upward mobility, they work in a field where their job is to help eliminate their job. The only thing offsetting that is that the pay is slightly better than equivalent options. I can understand why people lose attention driving these cars around.
- watwut 6y ago
  > Having to babysit auto-driving cars in their development phase is well within the realm of what humans are capable of. The argument is that no, it is not, even if you never open netflix you will loose attention. Rhat does not make Netflix ok. But this driver having netflix open does not imply that people without netflix wont loose attention. They will. Your second paragraph is both strawman and nonsense. Before millenials, people were not able to hold attention while nothing was happening. Which is why train drivers have protocols to prevent loss of attention and so do lifeguards. The whole "if you admit common human limitation out loud yoi are weak and spoiled is either arrogance or manipulative argument.