4 ms·

Mixed control between automated and human for tasks that require persistent attention is bad. We have known this for decades. The example often given in engine

Mixed control between automated and human for tasks that require persistent attention is bad. We have known this for decades. The example often given in engineering textbooks is 3 mile island. I suspect that the engineers involved in self driving systems know this too, but the liability is too great to make the switch all at once. It seems better to take baby steps into self driving, but history teaches us it should be all or nothing.

fallingknife 5y ago
You could say the same about airplane autopilots, but they have an amazing safety record.
- kaibee 5y ago
  Airplanes also have 2 pilots and nothing to crash into.
- Piskvorrr 5y ago
  Far fewer objects to hit in the air: disengagement means "keep going this way," rarely "and crash into an eventual obstacle". Plus, their early safety record is written in blood like everything else is.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    > Plus, their early safety record is written in blood like everything else is. Yeah, and that's how it's going to be with car autopilots. Which is why it pisses me off that people want to stop progress on it.
    - Piskvorrr 5y ago
      Interesting typoes in "be unwilling test subjects". Feel free to volunteer, though. Elaine Herzberg sure didn't.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  The airline autopilot doesn't have to negotiate anything like the kind of hazards that a car driving system does. Also, pilot training, the presence of a whole flight crew to monitor and catch errors make for a completely different situation.
  - madamelic 5y ago
    Not to mention you have to be licensed and spend hundreds of hours to share controls of a commercial plane. Car AP is way harder than plane AP and saying "But planes can do it, why is Tesla so bad at this" is facetious.
- yardie 5y ago
  They have their own records of fuck ups [0]. And for similar reasons as the Tesla AP crashes. Autopilot disengages and leaves the pilot in the lurch. If the pilot doesn't have situational awareness right away it can be fatal. Airplane autopilots, depending on generation, are full touch. The pilot programs the waypoints. The pilot is alerted and agrees to every course correction and change. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Airplane autopilots don't disengage. They do what you told them to do. They are simple and predictable systems that at most simply follow a predetermined course exactly.
  - detaro 5y ago
    That's not entirely true, there are situations where they do disengage automatically (e.g. due to missing/conflicting sensor information). By the nature of the thing it is a) rare and b) the pilots have more time to react because it won't be a "you're going to hit a truck in 1 second" situation unless something went badly wrong before. But there is still some risk to the handover situation making it more likely pilots misinterpret the current state of the plane or do not realize which automatic support is still active (not just autopilot, also other avionics support (e.g. if I remember correctly one aspect around the Air France 447 crash is that the pilot likely did not realize that the plane had disengaged support systems that would keep him inside a safe flight envelope in normal circumstances).

fallingknife 5y ago

You could say the same about airplane autopilots, but they have an amazing safety record.

kaibee 5y ago
Airplanes also have 2 pilots and nothing to crash into.
Piskvorrr 5y ago
Far fewer objects to hit in the air: disengagement means "keep going this way," rarely "and crash into an eventual obstacle". Plus, their early safety record is written in blood like everything else is.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  > Plus, their early safety record is written in blood like everything else is. Yeah, and that's how it's going to be with car autopilots. Which is why it pisses me off that people want to stop progress on it.
  - Piskvorrr 5y ago
    Interesting typoes in "be unwilling test subjects". Feel free to volunteer, though. Elaine Herzberg sure didn't.
meepmorp 5y ago
The airline autopilot doesn't have to negotiate anything like the kind of hazards that a car driving system does. Also, pilot training, the presence of a whole flight crew to monitor and catch errors make for a completely different situation.
- madamelic 5y ago
  Not to mention you have to be licensed and spend hundreds of hours to share controls of a commercial plane. Car AP is way harder than plane AP and saying "But planes can do it, why is Tesla so bad at this" is facetious.
yardie 5y ago
They have their own records of fuck ups [0]. And for similar reasons as the Tesla AP crashes. Autopilot disengages and leaves the pilot in the lurch. If the pilot doesn't have situational awareness right away it can be fatal. Airplane autopilots, depending on generation, are full touch. The pilot programs the waypoints. The pilot is alerted and agrees to every course correction and change. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
sudosysgen 5y ago
Airplane autopilots don't disengage. They do what you told them to do. They are simple and predictable systems that at most simply follow a predetermined course exactly.
- detaro 5y ago
  That's not entirely true, there are situations where they do disengage automatically (e.g. due to missing/conflicting sensor information). By the nature of the thing it is a) rare and b) the pilots have more time to react because it won't be a "you're going to hit a truck in 1 second" situation unless something went badly wrong before. But there is still some risk to the handover situation making it more likely pilots misinterpret the current state of the plane or do not realize which automatic support is still active (not just autopilot, also other avionics support (e.g. if I remember correctly one aspect around the Air France 447 crash is that the pilot likely did not realize that the plane had disengaged support systems that would keep him inside a safe flight envelope in normal circumstances).