4 ms·
Just because they're "very" different issues doesn't preclude there being a technical solution that helps solve parts of both problems.
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoThis 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.
- Piskvorrr 12y agoExcept that strong AI is not current technology, or even near-future technology. In other words, "hmm, this wouldn't be a problem if only we could do abracadabra and solve it with magic; therefore it's not a problem. We can't do abracadabra, and hence can't solve it this way? La la la, I can't hear you!" (Not sure I'd call that a technical solution, but let's assume so.)
- fapjacks 12y agoWe could make planes fly themselves today. This is (mostly) how military drones work. On a couple of my tours, we worked with drones that flew themselves almost completely. My best friend in the universe reenlisted just to fly them, and they fly themselves for most of their missions. Trust me: Planes could fly themselves using today's technology.
- Piskvorrr 12y agoEmphasis on almost. I'm not going to reiterate what's been said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9289225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9289225 , so just the TL;DR version: in case of major trouble, a CFIT of an unoccupied vehicle is a viable safety option, for that 1% that almost works. Try that with an airplane full of people...and you would become a terrorist. Tiny, tiny difference, nothing to worry about.