3 ms·

It does not help to call that technology AI. If we do so, now we have to invent some new term to distinguish between that sort of "AI", and the sort of AI that

It does not help to call that technology AI. If we do so, now we have to invent some new term to distinguish between that sort of "AI", and the sort of AI that could possibly replace pilots, as the former sort obviously cannot.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
“Replacements for people” is a terrible definition of AI, in theory and in practice. Alexa, Tesla autopilot, Google search, speech to text, recommendations— any practical example of AI— these are tools. Not human replacers.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  The author is not defining AI as such; he is proposing it as an application thereof. Is it your position that commercial flying can never be automated, or only that, if it is automated, it would not, by definition, be AI?
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    When you say “position that commercial flying can never be automated,” I’m assuming this to mean “fully automated.” My position is that “fully automated” is a logically inconsistent human objective. It means that there is no possibility of human control, because if there is human control / supervision, the system is not fully automated. And, so long as there is human control, you are designing tools for people to use. No one wants anything to be fully automated. It’s the biggest fallacy of AI in design.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      I wasn't asking about what you think of it as an objective, but whether you think it is possible. Furthermore, when being considered as an objective, whether it is done by anyone's definition of AI seems utterly beside your point. Neither the feasibility of automating the pilot's job, nor whether it is desirable to do so, depends on whether 1st. generation autopilots are considered to be AI.
      - dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Fully automated commercial flight is impossible. There, I’ve said it.
        mannykannot 5y ago
        I think so too - but it is inconceivable to me that this could be accomplished without feedback mechanisms or processes, which would, by your definition, qualify it as AI.
        mannykannot 5y ago
        Duh! I see that I completely misread your last post, which was quite a mistake, given that it is just two sentences of only ten words! If your basis for so believing is the same as you expressed a couple of posts back - that "fully automated" means that there is no possibility of human control, because if there is human control / supervision, the system is not fully automated - then you are simply avoiding the issue by using a pedantic definition of automation. It would seem that, to you, full automation of anything is a logical impossibility as there is no such thing as automation (in the usual sense) in your dictionary. If this is your argument then, by your definition, even the task of governing the speed of a steam engine cannot be fully automated, as someone sets the desired speed. This sort of reasoning is not insightful; it merely turns your participation in a discussion into a statement of your private lexicon, and avoids engaging any substantive issue. Private lexicons are not useful in communication! Furthermore, I can respond to your pedanticism by rephrasing the question: do you think it is impossible that commercial aviation could ever operate without human pilots either aboard the airplanes or controlling their flight remotely, beyond just setting target routes and schedules?
        dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Any commercial aviation? I mean, google’s project wing involved drones delivering packages.
        mannykannot 5y ago
charcircuit 5y ago
Some AI are more intelligent than others.
tomrod 5y ago
AI-augmented flight. We should not remove humans from the loop until the system passes the Turing test and solves the Trolley program concurrent to acceptable ethical standards.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  While I share your caution, I feel your requirements are a little too stringent. For one thing, no decent trolley problem has a solution that humans are all satisfied with. Also, quite a few commercial flying accidents have resulted from poor and even bizarre decisions made by their presumably Turing-test passing crew.

dr_dshiv 5y ago

“Replacements for people” is a terrible definition of AI, in theory and in practice. Alexa, Tesla autopilot, Google search, speech to text, recommendations— any practical example of AI— these are tools. Not human replacers.

mannykannot 5y ago
The author is not defining AI as such; he is proposing it as an application thereof. Is it your position that commercial flying can never be automated, or only that, if it is automated, it would not, by definition, be AI?
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  When you say “position that commercial flying can never be automated,” I’m assuming this to mean “fully automated.” My position is that “fully automated” is a logically inconsistent human objective. It means that there is no possibility of human control, because if there is human control / supervision, the system is not fully automated. And, so long as there is human control, you are designing tools for people to use. No one wants anything to be fully automated. It’s the biggest fallacy of AI in design.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I wasn't asking about what you think of it as an objective, but whether you think it is possible. Furthermore, when being considered as an objective, whether it is done by anyone's definition of AI seems utterly beside your point. Neither the feasibility of automating the pilot's job, nor whether it is desirable to do so, depends on whether 1st. generation autopilots are considered to be AI.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Fully automated commercial flight is impossible. There, I’ve said it.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        I think so too - but it is inconceivable to me that this could be accomplished without feedback mechanisms or processes, which would, by your definition, qualify it as AI.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        Duh! I see that I completely misread your last post, which was quite a mistake, given that it is just two sentences of only ten words! If your basis for so believing is the same as you expressed a couple of posts back - that "fully automated" means that there is no possibility of human control, because if there is human control / supervision, the system is not fully automated - then you are simply avoiding the issue by using a pedantic definition of automation. It would seem that, to you, full automation of anything is a logical impossibility as there is no such thing as automation (in the usual sense) in your dictionary. If this is your argument then, by your definition, even the task of governing the speed of a steam engine cannot be fully automated, as someone sets the desired speed. This sort of reasoning is not insightful; it merely turns your participation in a discussion into a statement of your private lexicon, and avoids engaging any substantive issue. Private lexicons are not useful in communication! Furthermore, I can respond to your pedanticism by rephrasing the question: do you think it is impossible that commercial aviation could ever operate without human pilots either aboard the airplanes or controlling their flight remotely, beyond just setting target routes and schedules?
        dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Any commercial aviation? I mean, google’s project wing involved drones delivering packages.
        mannykannot 5y ago

charcircuit 5y ago

Some AI are more intelligent than others.

tomrod 5y ago

AI-augmented flight. We should not remove humans from the loop until the system passes the Turing test and solves the Trolley program concurrent to acceptable ethical standards.

mannykannot 5y ago
While I share your caution, I feel your requirements are a little too stringent. For one thing, no decent trolley problem has a solution that humans are all satisfied with. Also, quite a few commercial flying accidents have resulted from poor and even bizarre decisions made by their presumably Turing-test passing crew.