4 ms·

Hi, aerospace software engineer and flight instructor here. I think you get shot down because the problems just aren't comparable. While I agree that there may

by _moof 5y ago

Hi, aerospace software engineer and flight instructor here. I think you get shot down because the problems just aren't comparable. While I agree that there may be some philosophical transfer from aircraft automation, the environments are so radically different that it's difficult to imagine any substantial technological transfer. Aircraft operate in an extremely controlled environment that is almost embarrassingly simple from an automation perspective. Almost everything is a straight line and the algorithms are intro control theory stuff. Lateral nav gets no more complicated than the difference between a great circle and a rhumb line. The collision avoidance systems are cooperative and punt altogether on anything that isn't the ground or another transponder-equipped airplane. The software amounts to little more than "extract reported altitude from transponder reply, if abs(other altitude - my altitude) < threshold, warn pilot and/or set vertical speed." It's a very long way from a machine learning system that has to identify literally any object in a scene filled with potentially thousands of targets. There's very little to worry about running into in the sky, and minimum safe altitudes are already mapped out for pretty much the entire world. Any remaining risk is managed by centralized control and certification, which just isn't going to happen for cars. We aren't going to live in a world where every street has to be (the equivalent of) an FAA certified airport with controls to remove any uncertainty about what the vehicle will encounter when it gets there. Nor are we going to create a centralized traffic control system that provides guarantees you won't collide with other vehicles on a predetermined route. So it's just a completely different world with completely different requirements. Are there things the aerospace world could teach other fields? Yeah, absolutely. Aerospace is pretty darn good at quality control. But the applications themselves are worlds apart.

ChicagoBoy11 5y ago
I'm actually in complete agreement! What sticks out to me is your assessment that the flight environment is "embarrassingly simple from an automation perspective", which I agree as well (as compared to cars). And yet despite that simplicity and decades at it, we still run it with an incredible robust infrastructure to have a human oversee the tech. We have super robust procedures for checking and cross-checking the automation, defined minimus and tolerances for when the automation needs to cease to operate the aircraft, training solely focused on operating the automation etc. But with cars, we somehow are super comfortable with cars severely altering behavior in a split-second, super poor driver insight or feedback on the automation, no training at all, with a human behind the wheel who in every marketing material known to man has been encouraged to trust the system far more than the tech (or law), would ever have you prudently do. I'm with you that they are super different, and that the auto case is likely much, much harder. But I see that and can't help but think that the path we should be following here is one with a much greater and healthy skepticism (and far greater human agency) in this automation journey than we are currently thinking is needed.
- _moof 5y ago
  I agree completely. It's a very difficult problem from a technical perspective, and from a systems perspective, we've got untrained operators who can't even stay off their phones in a non-self-driving car. (Not high-horsing it here; I'm as guilty of this as anyone.) Frankly I'll be amazed if anyone can get this to actually work without significant changes to the total system. Right now self-driving car folks are working in isolation - they're only working on the car - and I just don't think it's going to happen until everyone else in the system gets involved.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > we still run it with an incredible robust infrastructure to have a human oversee the tech Airplanes are responsible for 200-300+ lives at a time, so it’s quite incomparable to road vehicles. Of course it makes sense to have human oversight in case something goes wrong. On the flip side, the average car driver is not very skilled nor equipped to deal with most surprises - hence the ever present danger of road traffic. I’m not sure why AI drivers are held to such insanely high standards.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    The claim that self-driving cars are being held-up to a higher standard than human drivers is simply false. Self-driving cars so far have a far worse record than the average of human drivers, which is remarkably good. Human accidents are measure in term of "per million miles driven". Self-driving cars have driven a tiny total distance compared to all the miles human drivers have driven. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
    - zwily 5y ago
      What’s the “accidents per million miles driven” metric at for self driving cars?
  - quantified 5y ago
    I’m reminded of GWB’s “soft bigotry of low expectations”. (Even if you didn’t like him, it remains apt.) Sorry, most drivers I’ve seen avoid the kid that follows the bouncing ball into the street and all the other random events. A few drivers are crap. But justifying automation based on that few is lazy and incorrect. Elon is just full of his own crap on Tesla’s autopilot.
jet_32951 5y ago
Also, it is regrettable that cars don't have the FAA-required electronics, software, or integration processes. When I read that a Jeep's braking system was compromised through its entertainment system it was apparent that the aircraft lessons had not been taken aboard by the auto industry.
kryogen1c 5y ago
> We aren't going to live in a world where every street has to be (the equivalent of) an FAA certified airport with controls to remove any uncertainty actually ive been thinking this is exactly the win self driving vehicles have been looking for. upgrade, certify, and maintain cross country interstates like I-70 for fully autonomous, no driver vehicles like freight, mail, hell even passengers. maybe that means one lane with high-vis paint and predefined gas station stops and/or some other requirements. i bet the government could even subsidize with an infrastructure spending bill, politics notwithstanding. there cant possibly be a problem with _predefined_ highways that is harder to solve than neighborhood and city driving with unknown configurations and changing obstacles. i feel like everyones so rabid for fully autonomous Uber that the easier wins and use cases are being overlooked.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Well, to control things, you'd have to have a highway that's only for self-driving vehicles. And then you'd need to get them there - with what, human drivers? (losing the cost savings) Maybe you could use this for self-driving trucks between freight depots. The problem with this is - why not just use trains at this point? Trains already an economical solution for point to point transportation.
- Cycl0ps 5y ago
  >fully autonomous, no driver vehicles like freight, mail, hell even passengers. maybe that means one lane ... and predefined gas station stops and/or some other requirements. I bet the government could even subsidize with an infrastructure spending bill, politics notwithstanding. Yup, that's a train. I really do wish US rail hadn't been turned into what amounts to private property. I live along the Amtrak Cardinal line and would love to use it to travel. But the low speed and frequent stops for higher-priority freight mean a trip takes longer than driving and usually costs more than I would pay in gas.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
> We aren't going to live in a world where every street has to be (the equivalent of) an FAA certified airport with controls to remove any uncertainty about what the vehicle will encounter when it gets there. I do sometimes wish we'd just devote one lane of our larger freeways to self-driving cars exclusively. You could let the cars drive as fast as they want, and charge per-mile tolls for any car that uses it when the road is congested. Ideally, you'd charge based on occupancy as well: an empty car should have to pay more than a car with a human in it, and a car with 2+ people might be allowed to use the lane for free.

by _moof 5y ago

ChicagoBoy11 5y ago

I'm actually in complete agreement! What sticks out to me is your assessment that the flight environment is "embarrassingly simple from an automation perspective", which I agree as well (as compared to cars). And yet despite that simplicity and decades at it, we still run it with an incredible robust infrastructure to have a human oversee the tech. We have super robust procedures for checking and cross-checking the automation, defined minimus and tolerances for when the automation needs to cease to operate the aircraft, training solely focused on operating the automation etc. But with cars, we somehow are super comfortable with cars severely altering behavior in a split-second, super poor driver insight or feedback on the automation, no training at all, with a human behind the wheel who in every marketing material known to man has been encouraged to trust the system far more than the tech (or law), would ever have you prudently do. I'm with you that they are super different, and that the auto case is likely much, much harder. But I see that and can't help but think that the path we should be following here is one with a much greater and healthy skepticism (and far greater human agency) in this automation journey than we are currently thinking is needed.

_moof 5y ago
I agree completely. It's a very difficult problem from a technical perspective, and from a systems perspective, we've got untrained operators who can't even stay off their phones in a non-self-driving car. (Not high-horsing it here; I'm as guilty of this as anyone.) Frankly I'll be amazed if anyone can get this to actually work without significant changes to the total system. Right now self-driving car folks are working in isolation - they're only working on the car - and I just don't think it's going to happen until everyone else in the system gets involved.
yunohn 5y ago
> we still run it with an incredible robust infrastructure to have a human oversee the tech Airplanes are responsible for 200-300+ lives at a time, so it’s quite incomparable to road vehicles. Of course it makes sense to have human oversight in case something goes wrong. On the flip side, the average car driver is not very skilled nor equipped to deal with most surprises - hence the ever present danger of road traffic. I’m not sure why AI drivers are held to such insanely high standards.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  The claim that self-driving cars are being held-up to a higher standard than human drivers is simply false. Self-driving cars so far have a far worse record than the average of human drivers, which is remarkably good. Human accidents are measure in term of "per million miles driven". Self-driving cars have driven a tiny total distance compared to all the miles human drivers have driven. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
  - zwily 5y ago
    What’s the “accidents per million miles driven” metric at for self driving cars?
- quantified 5y ago
  I’m reminded of GWB’s “soft bigotry of low expectations”. (Even if you didn’t like him, it remains apt.) Sorry, most drivers I’ve seen avoid the kid that follows the bouncing ball into the street and all the other random events. A few drivers are crap. But justifying automation based on that few is lazy and incorrect. Elon is just full of his own crap on Tesla’s autopilot.

jet_32951 5y ago

Also, it is regrettable that cars don't have the FAA-required electronics, software, or integration processes. When I read that a Jeep's braking system was compromised through its entertainment system it was apparent that the aircraft lessons had not been taken aboard by the auto industry.

kryogen1c 5y ago

> We aren't going to live in a world where every street has to be (the equivalent of) an FAA certified airport with controls to remove any uncertainty actually ive been thinking this is exactly the win self driving vehicles have been looking for. upgrade, certify, and maintain cross country interstates like I-70 for fully autonomous, no driver vehicles like freight, mail, hell even passengers. maybe that means one lane with high-vis paint and predefined gas station stops and/or some other requirements. i bet the government could even subsidize with an infrastructure spending bill, politics notwithstanding. there cant possibly be a problem with _predefined_ highways that is harder to solve than neighborhood and city driving with unknown configurations and changing obstacles. i feel like everyones so rabid for fully autonomous Uber that the easier wins and use cases are being overlooked.

joe_the_user 5y ago
Well, to control things, you'd have to have a highway that's only for self-driving vehicles. And then you'd need to get them there - with what, human drivers? (losing the cost savings) Maybe you could use this for self-driving trucks between freight depots. The problem with this is - why not just use trains at this point? Trains already an economical solution for point to point transportation.
Cycl0ps 5y ago
>fully autonomous, no driver vehicles like freight, mail, hell even passengers. maybe that means one lane ... and predefined gas station stops and/or some other requirements. I bet the government could even subsidize with an infrastructure spending bill, politics notwithstanding. Yup, that's a train. I really do wish US rail hadn't been turned into what amounts to private property. I live along the Amtrak Cardinal line and would love to use it to travel. But the low speed and frequent stops for higher-priority freight mean a trip takes longer than driving and usually costs more than I would pay in gas.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

> We aren't going to live in a world where every street has to be (the equivalent of) an FAA certified airport with controls to remove any uncertainty about what the vehicle will encounter when it gets there. I do sometimes wish we'd just devote one lane of our larger freeways to self-driving cars exclusively. You could let the cars drive as fast as they want, and charge per-mile tolls for any car that uses it when the road is congested. Ideally, you'd charge based on occupancy as well: an empty car should have to pay more than a car with a human in it, and a car with 2+ people might be allowed to use the lane for free.