4 ms·

> What if a flight only cost a nickel, but there was a 40% chance it blew up? Everything has failure modes though so this isn't nearly as easy of a comparison.

> What if a flight only cost a nickel, but there was a 40% chance it blew up? Everything has failure modes though so this isn't nearly as easy of a comparison... Just as an example on the analogy, there are plenty of cases of pilot suicide bringing down planes too that one would expect would never happen with pure automation... So you can just as easily turn the analogy around and say people are the "cheap but worse" option. FWIW, we have been able to create processes to manage risks with unpredictable humans, why couldn't we with AI ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

iudqnolq 4y ago
> So you can just as easily turn the analogy around and say people are the "cheap but worse" option. No, because this is a factual question with a factual answer. You need to actually know which is more dangerous. > FWIW, we have been able to create processes to manage risks with unpredictable humans, why couldn't we with AI ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ Because humans and AI are different? We are much better at predicting when humans will be wrong than with AI, for one.