4 ms·

In my field (space) we have an unspoken mantra that autonomous systems should aid human decision making. It's just so much easier to build a system that allows

In my field (space) we have an unspoken mantra that autonomous systems should aid human decision making. It's just so much easier to build a system that allows a human to focus on the tough calls, than it is to build an end-to-end system that makes all the decisions. Only in the most extreme examples does full autonomy make sense. If there were one doctor in the world, I'd build an autonomous mammogram machine and have him periodically audit the diagnoses. Otherwise, better tools is the way to go. I noticed this when visiting the OBGYN for sonograms to check the development of our children. The tools are really good. You can easily measure distances and thicknesses, visualize doppler flow of blood, everything is projected from weird polar space (what the instrument measures) to a Cartesian space (what we expect to see), and you can capture images or video in real time. Sure, the cabal factor is real, as is the curmudgeon doctor, but I think we should be building tools, not doctors. We know how to build doctors.

divbzero 5y ago
Building tools to aid humans seems like the best of both worlds. This is already happening in some radiology subspecialties: The autonomous systems can highlight potential areas of interest but it’s up to humans to make the final call. For some cases it’s a quick and easy call, but for tougher calls the radiologist can bring other factors into consideration.
haihaibye 5y ago
A counter example from your field: Would a human add value adjusting the boosters to vertically land starship?
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  Not a counter example, but a legit question in spirit since autonomy vs human will always be a reasonable choice for some parts of a system. I just don't think real-time control of a system that's never been flown by humans is a good example of where that choice is hard. You can describe it with equations, solutions are well understood, there's no available humans that can do it, there's a well-understood need because fly by wire was necessitated to control some aircraft, and will be necessary to control more air/spacecraft in the future. Classic computer problem. (But I'm guessing Starship will have human controllers in/on the loop to do interventions before or during landing if required.) Doctor diagnosis is a good example of when that choice is hard to make. Hard to describe with equations, hard to model, not a well-understood need since professional doctors exist, decades of experience has been accumulated, huge swaths of industry are dedicated to helping doctors, etc etc. What I meant by "Allow the human to focus" definitely should be interpreted to mean removing small, multi-dimensional, fast, annoying things like real-time stabilization during landing.

divbzero 5y ago

Building tools to aid humans seems like the best of both worlds. This is already happening in some radiology subspecialties: The autonomous systems can highlight potential areas of interest but it’s up to humans to make the final call. For some cases it’s a quick and easy call, but for tougher calls the radiologist can bring other factors into consideration.

haihaibye 5y ago

A counter example from your field: Would a human add value adjusting the boosters to vertically land starship?

jvanderbot 5y ago
Not a counter example, but a legit question in spirit since autonomy vs human will always be a reasonable choice for some parts of a system. I just don't think real-time control of a system that's never been flown by humans is a good example of where that choice is hard. You can describe it with equations, solutions are well understood, there's no available humans that can do it, there's a well-understood need because fly by wire was necessitated to control some aircraft, and will be necessary to control more air/spacecraft in the future. Classic computer problem. (But I'm guessing Starship will have human controllers in/on the loop to do interventions before or during landing if required.) Doctor diagnosis is a good example of when that choice is hard to make. Hard to describe with equations, hard to model, not a well-understood need since professional doctors exist, decades of experience has been accumulated, huge swaths of industry are dedicated to helping doctors, etc etc. What I meant by "Allow the human to focus" definitely should be interpreted to mean removing small, multi-dimensional, fast, annoying things like real-time stabilization during landing.