4 ms·
I don't trust this buzzword, because I've seen it recently my industry (space). An industry where there are very good thermal, mechanical, kinematic, electrical
by johnwalkr 2y ago
I don't trust this buzzword, because I've seen it recently my industry (space). An industry where there are very good thermal, mechanical, kinematic, electrical(I could go on) models, all correlated to real-life testing, and usually an entire spacecraft simulator is available and used for operator training. There is complete traceability to every critical component. And even in this industry, in which a product has many correlated models made by different engineering disciplines and through a paperwork trail can identify the root cause of almost any issue, and then have the issue reproduced in the relevant model or a simulator "digital twin" doesn't mean "find a way to take all the available model outputs, test data, etc and predict a a failure mode". People have been working on doing this for decades. It ignores all of these available inputs and says "use AI and stuff to make a digital twin".
- OldGuyInTheClub 2y agoI think I may agree? What I see is Digital Twins with "AI and stuff" being promised as the savior of design onto manufacture then deployment and eventually operation. Draw block diagrams and software magically checks and flags errors which can then be fixed. Then, the model becomes "the truth" even when reality intervenes. Pretty tall order especially if the thing is the first or only one of its kind. There's also an implicit bias towards everything being decomposed as if it were digital and cleanly separable. Reality is much more analog and interconnected.