3 ms·

This is the danger of requiring humans to monitor non-L5 systems for safe operation. They are incapable of babysitting robots, and their brains shut down involu

This is the danger of requiring humans to monitor non-L5 systems for safe operation. They are incapable of babysitting robots, and their brains shut down involuntarily. Shit automation is more dangerous than no automation at all.

sneak 5y ago
Her watching TV on her phone was a voluntary action. I'm a big proponent of machine-assisted and humane attention span monitoring systems, as someone with massive attention span issues myself, but let's call a spade a spade. This wasn't a failure of attention, this was criminal negligence on the safety driver's part. (I would be willing to bet money that part of her job training also explicitly specified that you're not to be watching TV on your phone while driving/monitoring.) It's plausible that if she hadn't been watching TV, she still couldn't have conducted the monitoring task successfully due to the issue you describe, but we'll never know in this instance because she was consciously and voluntarily distracting herself. EDIT, addendum: FSD betas with human supervisors have logged many, many miles, for years now. If what you say is true (we know it's plausible), I believe we would have seen way, way more accidents and fatalities than we have. Not everything they is plausible and fits the narrative is true. It's entirely possible that the FSD betas being tested in industry rn are already safer than human drivers, if not as useful (eg getting caught up on simple edge cases and simply stopping in the middle of the road out of caution, et c).
- rendall 5y ago
  Humans are wired to need stimulation. Putting someone in a self-driving car for hours on end with nothing to do but watch the road - but not drive - is inhumane.
  - sneak 5y ago
    I don't believe this to be the case. In any case, it is insane and negligent to watch TV whilst on the job as a safety supervisor, no matter how inhumane or boring your job may be.
    - rendall 5y ago
      > it is insane and negligent... Perhaps, but irrelevant. It sounds like if you were in charge of safety for these cars, you would be just fine with firing this person, replacing them with someone else who promises not to do the same, and call it solved. We believe that likely will not solve the problem whether or not the monitor abides by their promise not to watch TV. The conditions are inherently unsafe, because no human being can sit passively without stimulation and remain alert enough to respond in a literal split second, quickly enough to avert an accident, for hours on end.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  > Her watching TV on her phone was a voluntary action. This is technically true, but completely useless when it comes to actually reducing the chance of it happening again in the future, Failures of human focus and attention are, in the aggregate, inevitable, and systems like this must be designed to accommodate that.
owl57 5y ago
I heard that nuclear plants are automated, but specifically designed to force the human operator to pay attention.

sneak 5y ago

Her watching TV on her phone was a voluntary action. I'm a big proponent of machine-assisted and humane attention span monitoring systems, as someone with massive attention span issues myself, but let's call a spade a spade. This wasn't a failure of attention, this was criminal negligence on the safety driver's part. (I would be willing to bet money that part of her job training also explicitly specified that you're not to be watching TV on your phone while driving/monitoring.) It's plausible that if she hadn't been watching TV, she still couldn't have conducted the monitoring task successfully due to the issue you describe, but we'll never know in this instance because she was consciously and voluntarily distracting herself. EDIT, addendum: FSD betas with human supervisors have logged many, many miles, for years now. If what you say is true (we know it's plausible), I believe we would have seen way, way more accidents and fatalities than we have. Not everything they is plausible and fits the narrative is true. It's entirely possible that the FSD betas being tested in industry rn are already safer than human drivers, if not as useful (eg getting caught up on simple edge cases and simply stopping in the middle of the road out of caution, et c).

rendall 5y ago
Humans are wired to need stimulation. Putting someone in a self-driving car for hours on end with nothing to do but watch the road - but not drive - is inhumane.
- sneak 5y ago
  I don't believe this to be the case. In any case, it is insane and negligent to watch TV whilst on the job as a safety supervisor, no matter how inhumane or boring your job may be.
  - rendall 5y ago
    > it is insane and negligent... Perhaps, but irrelevant. It sounds like if you were in charge of safety for these cars, you would be just fine with firing this person, replacing them with someone else who promises not to do the same, and call it solved. We believe that likely will not solve the problem whether or not the monitor abides by their promise not to watch TV. The conditions are inherently unsafe, because no human being can sit passively without stimulation and remain alert enough to respond in a literal split second, quickly enough to avert an accident, for hours on end.
crooked-v 5y ago
> Her watching TV on her phone was a voluntary action. This is technically true, but completely useless when it comes to actually reducing the chance of it happening again in the future, Failures of human focus and attention are, in the aggregate, inevitable, and systems like this must be designed to accommodate that.

owl57 5y ago

I heard that nuclear plants are automated, but specifically designed to force the human operator to pay attention.