4 ms·

You mean, like the entire rest of his comment? Garmin Autoland...

endisneigh 6y ago
The Garmin Autoland is not equivalent to full self driving? That's like self parking which has existed for a while now. In any case planes are inherently orders of magnitude safer than cars to begin with due to the lack of obstacles/chaos.
- anyfoo 6y ago
  It frustrates me to no end when people compare autolanding (even the Garmin kind), or worse, general autopilots, with self-driving cars. Anyone who does that has either never traveled in an airplane (even just as a passenger), or just never observed and thought about the vastly different levels of interaction planes have with their environment.
- craftinator 6y ago
  Did you forget what you originally wrote? You said: > Do you have an example of something humans did that could kill them that was automated completely that still can kill them, but generally does not anymore? And I pointed out that the parent comment had already provided an example. Now you are arguing with me that the example given, about Garmin Autoland, isn't comparable to self-driving... Which isn't at all the example you asked for in the first place. Maybe focus and read a little more, write a little less. You'll be more easily understood.
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    > Do you have an example of something humans did that could kill them that was automated completely that still can kill them, but generally does not anymore? My understanding from looking at research is that airplanes by experienced pilots rarely killed people... and they... still don't even when (partially) automated? There doesn't appear to be definitive evidence that autopilot is safer [2] as many of the innovations in safety have been conflated with procedural improvements. In fact there are studies [1] that suggest autopilot is actually making flights unsafe as pilots are becoming complacent and airplanes do not flight themselves completely from point to point including taxiing. In other words, no, plane automation is not an example as it does not satisfy the criteria of "generally does not" compared to the baseline of no automation. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872088502700107 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872088502700... [2]https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/Hindsight/Hindsight-20.pdf https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/... Try not to be so condescending, sheesh.
    - craftinator 6y ago
      You wrote: > The Garmin Autoland is not equivalent to full self driving? This has nothing to do with your argument criteria of: > Do you have an example of something humans did that could kill them that was automated completely that still can kill them, but generally does not anymore? > Try not to be so condescending, sheesh. I didn't mean that to be condescending out of turn, but if you are going to engage in an argument by posting a strong disagreement and an opinion: > I strongly disagree. Most machines are not capable of killing you because it makes a mistake. You cannot change the criteria for an example that you asked for simply because you don't feel like arguing that the example did or did not meet your criteria, nor can you do so simply because you didn't bother to read it carefully. So no, I'm not being condescending out of turn, you really needed some correction on that. Sheesh.

The Garmin Autoland is not equivalent to full self driving? That's like self parking which has existed for a while now. In any case planes are inherently orders of magnitude safer than cars to begin with due to the lack of obstacles/chaos.

anyfoo 6y ago
It frustrates me to no end when people compare autolanding (even the Garmin kind), or worse, general autopilots, with self-driving cars. Anyone who does that has either never traveled in an airplane (even just as a passenger), or just never observed and thought about the vastly different levels of interaction planes have with their environment.
craftinator 6y ago
Did you forget what you originally wrote? You said: > Do you have an example of something humans did that could kill them that was automated completely that still can kill them, but generally does not anymore? And I pointed out that the parent comment had already provided an example. Now you are arguing with me that the example given, about Garmin Autoland, isn't comparable to self-driving... Which isn't at all the example you asked for in the first place. Maybe focus and read a little more, write a little less. You'll be more easily understood.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  > Do you have an example of something humans did that could kill them that was automated completely that still can kill them, but generally does not anymore? My understanding from looking at research is that airplanes by experienced pilots rarely killed people... and they... still don't even when (partially) automated? There doesn't appear to be definitive evidence that autopilot is safer [2] as many of the innovations in safety have been conflated with procedural improvements. In fact there are studies [1] that suggest autopilot is actually making flights unsafe as pilots are becoming complacent and airplanes do not flight themselves completely from point to point including taxiing. In other words, no, plane automation is not an example as it does not satisfy the criteria of "generally does not" compared to the baseline of no automation. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872088502700107 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872088502700... [2]https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/Hindsight/Hindsight-20.pdf https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/... Try not to be so condescending, sheesh.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    You wrote: > The Garmin Autoland is not equivalent to full self driving? This has nothing to do with your argument criteria of: > Do you have an example of something humans did that could kill them that was automated completely that still can kill them, but generally does not anymore? > Try not to be so condescending, sheesh. I didn't mean that to be condescending out of turn, but if you are going to engage in an argument by posting a strong disagreement and an opinion: > I strongly disagree. Most machines are not capable of killing you because it makes a mistake. You cannot change the criteria for an example that you asked for simply because you don't feel like arguing that the example did or did not meet your criteria, nor can you do so simply because you didn't bother to read it carefully. So no, I'm not being condescending out of turn, you really needed some correction on that. Sheesh.