3 ms·
I encounter this same need in my day job as a controls engineer. Robots (actual industrial 6-axis robots, not T-800s), PLCs, and computers are surprisingly dum
by LeifCarrotson 2y ago
I encounter this same need in my day job as a controls engineer.
Robots (actual industrial 6-axis robots, not T-800s), PLCs, and computers are surprisingly dumb, but they're dumb reliably, tirelessly, and very fast. Human operators and technicians, in comparisons, are paragons of unimaginable wisdom, but they are slow to react and occasionally make mistakes.
The magic happens when you bring them together correctly.
A human cannot respond in milliseconds under optimal conditions, under poor conditions (such as being fatigued and stressed by hours of unrelenting demand on their attention) they might take seconds to respond. It's possible but you don't really want to relegate basic tasks like lane centering and speed regulation to their subconscious, because they're likely to make mistakes. Computers can do a 1ms PID loop all day.
On the other hand, even with all the massive advancements being made by LLMs these days, a 4-year-old can better understand the gestures and commands from a traffic cop than software that would take a team of engineers and high-speed LIDAR sensors thousands of hours to interpret with a useless 95% accuracy rate.
Let humans do human things and machines do machine things. We don't ask humans to manage fuel mixtures or double-clutching a manual transmission anymore, because the machines can do that better. We shouldn't ask the machines to interpret emergency signage in the future, because humans can do that better.
The optimal level of automation is probably past analog cruise control that's been around for decades and simple suspension caster angles that bias the wheels to keep straight, probably even beyond level 2 radar distance-keeping cruise with automatic emergency braking and automated lane centering, but may never be "punch in an address" automated.