3 ms·

I could not feel comfortable as a passenger on a commercial airliner without a human on board that could take over and fly the plane manually. There are all kin

by bdamm 3y ago

I could not feel comfortable as a passenger on a commercial airliner without a human on board that could take over and fly the plane manually. There are all kinds of failure scenarios where a computer, AI or not, would get confused. Even just the specter of malware is enough for me to expect a human being, that values their own life, is able to take over.

AussieWog93 3y ago
>Even just the specter of malware is enough for me to expect a human being, that values their own life, is able to take over. I'd be more concerned abouta human going insane than malware. I'd imagine they're mostly fly by wire anyway, so a virus could theoretically just disable the human input.
- bdamm 3y ago
  Airbus designs are substantially fly by wire, although supposedly with an isolated control system. Boeing designs are isolated electro-hydraulic. There's a big difference between isolating a single control link vs an entire control system comprising of, at least, a corpus database and all the supporting code that streams inputs and actuates outputs.
- sgarland 3y ago
  I assume / hope that there still exists manual hydraulic controls for the control surfaces. Maybe not in the cockpit, but somewhere accessible in flight in an emergency. Modern U.S. submarines are also fly-by-wire, but hydraulic overrides are in the engine room in case of emergency.
saghm 3y ago
> I could not feel comfortable as a passenger on a commercial airliner without a human on board that could take over and fly the plane manually. There are all kinds of failure scenarios where a computer, AI or not, would get confused. "Person there just in case to take over in the rare case of emergencies" might not be as well paid as "person who's responsible for the plane at all times". Plus, if you're concerned about malware, you'll probably want a person still involved in vetting the code outputted by some hypothetical AI, so there would still be at least some engineering jobs.
- almostnormal 3y ago
  The person to fly in case of an emergency will require the same kind of currency as a person flying all the time. The person flying all the time will be much more capable than the person watching the plane fly, and acquiring experience only in specific training.
  - saghm 3y ago
    > The person to fly in case of an emergency will require the same kind of currency as a person flying all the time. Almost everyone requires the same "kind of currency", but that doesn't stop salaries from being different. > The person flying all the time will be much more capable than the person watching the plane fly, and acquiring experience only in specific training. If the plane can be piloted mostly automatically, that doesn't necessarily matter. What matters only is if the emergency person can handle the emergencies that do occur. To be clear, I don't have any strong belief that human pilots will disappear any time soon; I just don't think the arguments people are making here are that compelling, because they seem to be assuming that the skill level of flying a plane is much too high for an automatic pilot. As someone who's been skeptical of fully automated driving for a long time now despite popular opinion seeming far more optimistic about it in the short term, it's kind of ironic to see "humans will always be better at flying" presented as axiomatic.
MattSayar 3y ago
I largely agree with you, however auto-pilot has existed for decades. I don't foresee AI taking over the cockpit anytime soon, but a compromise is likely. Perhaps it'll allow for copilots with less overall experience than copilots today.
- idontpost 3y ago
  [dead]
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
I'm infinitely more comfortable with an AI flown plane than a AI driven vehicle. The issues the plane has to deal with are going to be much more predictable than the issues a vehicle has to deal with. Certainly things like the ghimli glider are better for having a human at the helm, but those sorts of things shouldn't happen.
fsckboy 3y ago
>There are all kinds of failure scenarios where a computer, AI or not, would get confused. but there may also be enough kinds of failure—and routine—scenarios where computers do a better job, so on balance they could be much better, just killing a few people in the most absurd situations that would never fool a human. You can't guesstimate reason these things, need statistics. also, if automated systems have a bright future for us, maybe we have to sacrifice a few people on the QA team in order to get there.

by bdamm 3y ago

AussieWog93 3y ago

>Even just the specter of malware is enough for me to expect a human being, that values their own life, is able to take over. I'd be more concerned abouta human going insane than malware. I'd imagine they're mostly fly by wire anyway, so a virus could theoretically just disable the human input.

bdamm 3y ago
Airbus designs are substantially fly by wire, although supposedly with an isolated control system. Boeing designs are isolated electro-hydraulic. There's a big difference between isolating a single control link vs an entire control system comprising of, at least, a corpus database and all the supporting code that streams inputs and actuates outputs.
sgarland 3y ago
I assume / hope that there still exists manual hydraulic controls for the control surfaces. Maybe not in the cockpit, but somewhere accessible in flight in an emergency. Modern U.S. submarines are also fly-by-wire, but hydraulic overrides are in the engine room in case of emergency.

saghm 3y ago

> I could not feel comfortable as a passenger on a commercial airliner without a human on board that could take over and fly the plane manually. There are all kinds of failure scenarios where a computer, AI or not, would get confused. "Person there just in case to take over in the rare case of emergencies" might not be as well paid as "person who's responsible for the plane at all times". Plus, if you're concerned about malware, you'll probably want a person still involved in vetting the code outputted by some hypothetical AI, so there would still be at least some engineering jobs.

almostnormal 3y ago
The person to fly in case of an emergency will require the same kind of currency as a person flying all the time. The person flying all the time will be much more capable than the person watching the plane fly, and acquiring experience only in specific training.
- saghm 3y ago
  > The person to fly in case of an emergency will require the same kind of currency as a person flying all the time. Almost everyone requires the same "kind of currency", but that doesn't stop salaries from being different. > The person flying all the time will be much more capable than the person watching the plane fly, and acquiring experience only in specific training. If the plane can be piloted mostly automatically, that doesn't necessarily matter. What matters only is if the emergency person can handle the emergencies that do occur. To be clear, I don't have any strong belief that human pilots will disappear any time soon; I just don't think the arguments people are making here are that compelling, because they seem to be assuming that the skill level of flying a plane is much too high for an automatic pilot. As someone who's been skeptical of fully automated driving for a long time now despite popular opinion seeming far more optimistic about it in the short term, it's kind of ironic to see "humans will always be better at flying" presented as axiomatic.

MattSayar 3y ago

I largely agree with you, however auto-pilot has existed for decades. I don't foresee AI taking over the cockpit anytime soon, but a compromise is likely. Perhaps it'll allow for copilots with less overall experience than copilots today.

idontpost 3y ago
[dead]

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

I'm infinitely more comfortable with an AI flown plane than a AI driven vehicle. The issues the plane has to deal with are going to be much more predictable than the issues a vehicle has to deal with. Certainly things like the ghimli glider are better for having a human at the helm, but those sorts of things shouldn't happen.

fsckboy 3y ago

>There are all kinds of failure scenarios where a computer, AI or not, would get confused. but there may also be enough kinds of failure—and routine—scenarios where computers do a better job, so on balance they could be much better, just killing a few people in the most absurd situations that would never fool a human. You can't guesstimate reason these things, need statistics. also, if automated systems have a bright future for us, maybe we have to sacrifice a few people on the QA team in order to get there.