3 ms·

> It fits perfectly if you look at it from a "balls" standpoint, this pilot ejected for whatever by-the-book reason when his electronics were bad and yet the ai

> It fits perfectly if you look at it from a "balls" standpoint, this pilot ejected for whatever by-the-book reason when his electronics were bad and yet the airplane continued for 11 minutes just on autopilot. > How would you expect a pilot that gives up so "easily" to lead other men into a high risk-high reward operation when he gives up himself so easily? If you use an ejection seat, there is also a given high probability that you will never be capable of flying a fighter jet afterwards, so it also takes quite some balls to make the decision to use it. Also, the pilot did not "give up", but decided that it is smarter to retreat and save lives instead of going to death. In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers - but I'm a nerd. So, the only explanation that I have is that the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior.

rightbyte 2y ago
> So, the only explanation that I have is that the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior. Ye that goes without saying. With attrition trench warfare being in fashion again I expect this to get worse. Soldiers need to feel they are perpetrators, not victims. It 'takes balls' to wait out shell after shell for the one with your name on it. A conservative risk reward analysis would suggest bailing. People that don't understand the odds of waiting or fragging are preferrable.
pjc50 2y ago
> Also, the pilot did not "give up", but decided that it is smarter to retreat and save lives instead of going to death. The thing is, millennia of military culture is devoted to training people out of simply avoiding fighting by running away, or even fear of death, because otherwise it can't function and those who run away endanger others by doing so. I'm reminded of Admiral Byng being court-martialled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng) and the famous line "in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres"; the phrase "pour encourager les autres" has entered English to refer to any punishment which is intended to have a strong behavioral effect on the non-punished members of the same class. There will definitely be an element of that here. This guy is being punished conspicuously to remind other pilots that ejecting is a last resort. > In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers - but I'm a nerd. There are no such "hyperrational risk calculators", you just mean "someone who would make the same decision as me in this situation". > the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior Well, yes, that's kind of intrinsic to the nature of an organization which exists to project force.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > There are no such "hyperrational risk calculators", you just mean "someone who would make the same decision as me in this situation". No, I don't mean that. 1. I'm not the kind of person who believes that their own judgement is the best and most rational one. 2. I am very convinced these people do exist. For example look at rationalism websites and forums: there you might find some of such people. --- > Well, yes, that's kind of intrinsic to the nature of an organization which exists to project force. I don't think so: you can project force either by a) gore violence ("hyper-masculinity") or b) intellectual supremacy
- flir 2y ago
  Candide. Fun fact (and nothing to do with the article): The country was pissed at Byng. The road to London was lined with pitchfork-wielding yokels for pretty much the first fifteen miles. I don't think he did anything wrong but I can see why, in that atmosphere, he was the bone thrown to appease the dogs.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  The Byng article is interesting. I have this theory that military officers are mainly evaluated on how many of their soldiers that die or go missing. It is the easiest hard number to make a metric off. Easy to verify. The more soldiers an officer can kill, the better he seems. Obviously admirals had a harder task since sunk enemy ships is easier to count. And Byng had witnesses from land. He should have sunk 3 or 4 ships, in hind sight.
bumby 2y ago
>I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators, and it gets worse as the probability of risk gets lower. I'm willing to bet that even if he made the "right" decision to stay with the craft, he wouldn't have been able to accurately calculate the risk in an after-action-report, even with the benefit of lower stress and an abundance of time.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators Indeed few people have this rare capability, that's why I explicitly named them this way ("hyperrational risk calculators").
  - bumby 2y ago
    I’m somewhat skeptical that they exist, at least in the numbers needed to fill pilot slots. Barring certain neurological disease, I don’t think people are “hyper rational” despite even appearing that way to the outside, or identifying themselves as such. We like to sometimes think of our brains as cold computers but they’re not, and even less so in time-critical situations like flying a damaged aircraft. We’re moreso “hypertationalizers” than “hyperrational”
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      > I don’t think people are “hyper rational” despite even appearing that way to the outside, or identifying themselves as such. As I wrote in my parallel answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115831 I do believe that on rationalism websites or forums, it's quite plausible that some of this breed of people hangs around. --- > I’m somewhat skeptical that they exist [...] in the numbers needed to fill pilot slots. I think we agree with this weaker statement that I created by using the ellipsis. But, as I wrote, > In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers I'd strongly prefer these people - assuming such a choice exists.

rightbyte 2y ago

> So, the only explanation that I have is that the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior. Ye that goes without saying. With attrition trench warfare being in fashion again I expect this to get worse. Soldiers need to feel they are perpetrators, not victims. It 'takes balls' to wait out shell after shell for the one with your name on it. A conservative risk reward analysis would suggest bailing. People that don't understand the odds of waiting or fragging are preferrable.

pjc50 2y ago

> Also, the pilot did not "give up", but decided that it is smarter to retreat and save lives instead of going to death. The thing is, millennia of military culture is devoted to training people out of simply avoiding fighting by running away, or even fear of death, because otherwise it can't function and those who run away endanger others by doing so. I'm reminded of Admiral Byng being court-martialled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng) and the famous line "in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres"; the phrase "pour encourager les autres" has entered English to refer to any punishment which is intended to have a strong behavioral effect on the non-punished members of the same class. There will definitely be an element of that here. This guy is being punished conspicuously to remind other pilots that ejecting is a last resort. > In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers - but I'm a nerd. There are no such "hyperrational risk calculators", you just mean "someone who would make the same decision as me in this situation". > the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior Well, yes, that's kind of intrinsic to the nature of an organization which exists to project force.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> There are no such "hyperrational risk calculators", you just mean "someone who would make the same decision as me in this situation". No, I don't mean that. 1. I'm not the kind of person who believes that their own judgement is the best and most rational one. 2. I am very convinced these people do exist. For example look at rationalism websites and forums: there you might find some of such people. --- > Well, yes, that's kind of intrinsic to the nature of an organization which exists to project force. I don't think so: you can project force either by a) gore violence ("hyper-masculinity") or b) intellectual supremacy
flir 2y ago
Candide. Fun fact (and nothing to do with the article): The country was pissed at Byng. The road to London was lined with pitchfork-wielding yokels for pretty much the first fifteen miles. I don't think he did anything wrong but I can see why, in that atmosphere, he was the bone thrown to appease the dogs.
rightbyte 2y ago
The Byng article is interesting. I have this theory that military officers are mainly evaluated on how many of their soldiers that die or go missing. It is the easiest hard number to make a metric off. Easy to verify. The more soldiers an officer can kill, the better he seems. Obviously admirals had a harder task since sunk enemy ships is easier to count. And Byng had witnesses from land. He should have sunk 3 or 4 ships, in hind sight.

bumby 2y ago

>I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators, and it gets worse as the probability of risk gets lower. I'm willing to bet that even if he made the "right" decision to stay with the craft, he wouldn't have been able to accurately calculate the risk in an after-action-report, even with the benefit of lower stress and an abundance of time.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators Indeed few people have this rare capability, that's why I explicitly named them this way ("hyperrational risk calculators").
- bumby 2y ago
  I’m somewhat skeptical that they exist, at least in the numbers needed to fill pilot slots. Barring certain neurological disease, I don’t think people are “hyper rational” despite even appearing that way to the outside, or identifying themselves as such. We like to sometimes think of our brains as cold computers but they’re not, and even less so in time-critical situations like flying a damaged aircraft. We’re moreso “hypertationalizers” than “hyperrational”
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > I don’t think people are “hyper rational” despite even appearing that way to the outside, or identifying themselves as such. As I wrote in my parallel answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115831 I do believe that on rationalism websites or forums, it's quite plausible that some of this breed of people hangs around. --- > I’m somewhat skeptical that they exist [...] in the numbers needed to fill pilot slots. I think we agree with this weaker statement that I created by using the ellipsis. But, as I wrote, > In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers I'd strongly prefer these people - assuming such a choice exists.