4 ms·

> Humans have been treating ailments for thousands of years without the aide of computers. And now computers are in many cases deciding about life and death. V

> Humans have been treating ailments for thousands of years without the aide of computers. And now computers are in many cases deciding about life and death. Very trivial example: Boeing 737 MAX. Not able to turn off automation can cause death. > Going beyond just the human dependence on computers, it would be a good exercise in society readiness to be able to treat patients during a blackout for example. I agree but this does not mean that we are ready for that.

INTPenis 6y ago
The Boeing was a major scandal though. We didn't blame the pilot or the software developers. We blame Boeing and the Air regulation authorities for not doing the necessary QA. >I agree but this does not mean that we are ready for that. Yes, well then this issue is even more important. Because the german police are treating this as a type of homicide. So they seem to be going after the hackers as the cause of death here. Then it becomes even more important to clarify why the woman was turned away. Others have pointed this out but it could be as simple as general policy, or a manager not willing to risk treating her without the proper tools. Either way, european countries have been talking about society readiness lately and this is key for society preparedness. Therefore I'm not sure we should be pointing fingers at the hackers here, seems like an easy scapegoat for a deeper issue. Even if they have to manually operate a ventilator for 4 hours in shifts, they are still a hospital. The most qualified place to save a life, and they turned it away.
akkawwakka 6y ago
Automation can also go very far in saving lives. We hear about fatal plane crashes in the news, but don’t really hear about the times that automation and computer systems catch or report a pilot overspending the aircraft, making an unsafe maneuver, deviating from standard operating procedures, or touching down too hard. The Boeing situation is an interesting. With the Max, Boeing broke a core tenant of aircraft design that’s been a major factor in making airliners so safe. The MCAS system’s inputs (from angle of attack sensors) were not redundant. They should have been at least doubly-redundant given that the ultimate design of MCAS could pitch the aircraft down to such a degree that the pilot could not overcome it using their own control inputs. While Boeing probably should have redesigned its airframe instead of adding MCAS, it wasn’t a fundamentally bad idea to employ automation. The system behavior changed, but the company failed to re-assess the safety implications. All Airbus products are fly-by-wire and there’s always some level of automation in play. It degrades to employ less protections when system faults occur. There’s a lesson there for Boeing!

INTPenis 6y ago

The Boeing was a major scandal though. We didn't blame the pilot or the software developers. We blame Boeing and the Air regulation authorities for not doing the necessary QA. >I agree but this does not mean that we are ready for that. Yes, well then this issue is even more important. Because the german police are treating this as a type of homicide. So they seem to be going after the hackers as the cause of death here. Then it becomes even more important to clarify why the woman was turned away. Others have pointed this out but it could be as simple as general policy, or a manager not willing to risk treating her without the proper tools. Either way, european countries have been talking about society readiness lately and this is key for society preparedness. Therefore I'm not sure we should be pointing fingers at the hackers here, seems like an easy scapegoat for a deeper issue. Even if they have to manually operate a ventilator for 4 hours in shifts, they are still a hospital. The most qualified place to save a life, and they turned it away.

akkawwakka 6y ago

Automation can also go very far in saving lives. We hear about fatal plane crashes in the news, but don’t really hear about the times that automation and computer systems catch or report a pilot overspending the aircraft, making an unsafe maneuver, deviating from standard operating procedures, or touching down too hard. The Boeing situation is an interesting. With the Max, Boeing broke a core tenant of aircraft design that’s been a major factor in making airliners so safe. The MCAS system’s inputs (from angle of attack sensors) were not redundant. They should have been at least doubly-redundant given that the ultimate design of MCAS could pitch the aircraft down to such a degree that the pilot could not overcome it using their own control inputs. While Boeing probably should have redesigned its airframe instead of adding MCAS, it wasn’t a fundamentally bad idea to employ automation. The system behavior changed, but the company failed to re-assess the safety implications. All Airbus products are fly-by-wire and there’s always some level of automation in play. It degrades to employ less protections when system faults occur. There’s a lesson there for Boeing!