5 ms·

This responsibility is to great to leave it to humans. Automate this stuff.

mikeash 12y ago
There's always going to be a human involved at some point (at least until the machines take over, but then they probably won't be flying us around). If it's all automated, then instead of a crazy pilot killing everyone on his airliner, it might be a crazy programmer killing everyone on every airborne airliner.
- nextw33k 12y ago
  Except there are checks and balances in place before software gets installed on a plane.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Those don't always work. There are checks and balances in place before pilots get to fly airplanes, too.
    - nextw33k 12y ago
      > Those don't always work Of course not, nothing always works. You are implying that checks are worthless because they failed on this co-pilot. In the context of a pilots mental state verses malicious source code being installed on a set of flight computers, I'd have to say the computer is easier to validate. That many more people have to approve the process. With a pair of pilots the validation process is much smaller and more complex. We need to stop thinking that machines are flawed and that humans know best. The fact of life is that machines can and do perform better than humans, the only reason flight computers don't currently is that there hasn't been the investment in making them do so. Sensors fail but that is an engineering problem that can be solved.
- reustle 12y ago
  Flights are almost fully automatic already. They saw data showing the pilot turned off autopilot and set the target cruising altitude to 100m. Putting a block in place unless you're in an area where that is safe (flat). I was recently flying in a small airplane (SR22) and the terrain detection system was going bonkers when we were landing saying that terrain was getting close to us. They have all the data, they just need to build in some more protections.
jcfrei 12y ago
I think in the near term a possible remote override from air traffic control would make more sense.
- danellis 12y ago
  Right, because that signal would never get hacked.
  - fapjacks 12y ago
    That's not what he's saying. The world isn't as black-and-white as "it can be hacked, so it's not worth it"... He's talking about raising the barrier to entry for this kind of situation via automation, much like TCAS would have prevented the Uberlingen collision.
    - Piskvorrr 12y ago
      Preventing accidents and stopping a rogue insider are very different issues. Remote control opens a bunch of new attack surfaces, while not helping with the original problem.
      - fapjacks 12y ago
        Just because they're "very" different issues doesn't preclude there being a technical solution that helps solve parts of both problems.
        Piskvorrr 12y ago
        No, no, no, no. There is no technical solution to this non-technical issue. I understand the frustration of "but surely there MUST be a scriptable way out of this," but IMNSHO there isn't (short of strong AI).
        fapjacks 12y ago
        This issue of humans in the cockpit? You're saying there's no technical solution to this ....... except AI, which would be a technical solution to this issue.

There's always going to be a human involved at some point (at least until the machines take over, but then they probably won't be flying us around). If it's all automated, then instead of a crazy pilot killing everyone on his airliner, it might be a crazy programmer killing everyone on every airborne airliner.

nextw33k 12y ago
Except there are checks and balances in place before software gets installed on a plane.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Those don't always work. There are checks and balances in place before pilots get to fly airplanes, too.
  - nextw33k 12y ago
    > Those don't always work Of course not, nothing always works. You are implying that checks are worthless because they failed on this co-pilot. In the context of a pilots mental state verses malicious source code being installed on a set of flight computers, I'd have to say the computer is easier to validate. That many more people have to approve the process. With a pair of pilots the validation process is much smaller and more complex. We need to stop thinking that machines are flawed and that humans know best. The fact of life is that machines can and do perform better than humans, the only reason flight computers don't currently is that there hasn't been the investment in making them do so. Sensors fail but that is an engineering problem that can be solved.
reustle 12y ago
Flights are almost fully automatic already. They saw data showing the pilot turned off autopilot and set the target cruising altitude to 100m. Putting a block in place unless you're in an area where that is safe (flat). I was recently flying in a small airplane (SR22) and the terrain detection system was going bonkers when we were landing saying that terrain was getting close to us. They have all the data, they just need to build in some more protections.

jcfrei 12y ago

I think in the near term a possible remote override from air traffic control would make more sense.

danellis 12y ago
Right, because that signal would never get hacked.
- fapjacks 12y ago
  That's not what he's saying. The world isn't as black-and-white as "it can be hacked, so it's not worth it"... He's talking about raising the barrier to entry for this kind of situation via automation, much like TCAS would have prevented the Uberlingen collision.
  - Piskvorrr 12y ago
    Preventing accidents and stopping a rogue insider are very different issues. Remote control opens a bunch of new attack surfaces, while not helping with the original problem.
    - fapjacks 12y ago
      Just because they're "very" different issues doesn't preclude there being a technical solution that helps solve parts of both problems.
      - Piskvorrr 12y ago
        No, no, no, no. There is no technical solution to this non-technical issue. I understand the frustration of "but surely there MUST be a scriptable way out of this," but IMNSHO there isn't (short of strong AI).
        fapjacks 12y ago
        This issue of humans in the cockpit? You're saying there's no technical solution to this ....... except AI, which would be a technical solution to this issue.