5 ms·

Wow, for being on HN this thread sure is filled with Luddites. Humans are inherently more error prone than computers, once properly programmed and designed. AI

Wow, for being on HN this thread sure is filled with Luddites. Humans are inherently more error prone than computers, once properly programmed and designed. AI and machines might not be better now, but they will be eventually. And the only way to get there is to start small and work our way up. In my opinion, right now we're at the limit of safety provided by letting humans run things. We can't really make those systems more safe than they are right now. We need a paradigm shift. Letting computers run the show is uncharted territory. Right now, AI pilots/drivers are in their infancy. Comparing an infant to a mature system is a short sighted comparison. You need to take the long view- what would these systems look like after a decade or two of iteration? It's like not anyone is saying we should do this RIGHT NOW WITH NO GOING BACK! Of course not. Let's try it in drones. Let's try it in cargo planes. Let's try it in military planes. If it ever seems like it won't work, we can always change course. But not even wanting to try??? Come on, that isn't in our DNA.

tormeh 12y ago
>properly programmed and designed And therein lies the problem. HN commenters know how fragile technology is.
aaronem 12y ago
> We can't really make those systems more safe than they are right now. True, more or less. > We need a paradigm shift. Really? Perfect safety is a pipe dream, and the rule of diminishing returns applies here as everywhere else. Compared to modern aviation, the early days were just chock-full of accidents and incidents, because we hadn't encountered the 90% cases in order to solve them. Happily, we've solved those cases and more, which is how we come to have the luxury of confusing edge and corner cases, like deliberate CFIT (e.g. Germanwings 9525), with major safety issues. Introducing full-on, pilotless cockpit automation is going to have the same high incident rate that early aviation did, for the same reasons -- we just don't know enough about the problem domain to account for the 90% cases, so we're going to have to see them fall out of the sky and hit the ground before we know how to solve them. And, of course, there's also the fact that pilotless aviation can't actually solve all the edge and corner cases of piloted aviation, but only some of them. It'd make deliberate CFIT a thing of the past, sure! But deliberate CFIT, and things like it, aren't the only reasons why a commercial aircraft falls out of the sky. Sometimes it's maintenance error; sometimes it's equipment failure; sometimes we don't even know what happened. Pilotless aviation won't address all of these cases. Eventually, I don't doubt, we would achieve the same excellent safety record with pilotless aircraft that we see right now with piloted ones. The question boils down to whether, in order to address a subset of the corner cases in piloted aviation, it's worth accepting the costly process of working out the 90% cases in pilotless aviation. I really do not think it's Luddism to regard the tradeoff there as not worth making.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I disagree. The physics of flying the plane are the same regardless of who is flying it, and we can have as much training data as we want. Unlike with early aviation, you know have a base metric to measure against (human pilots), and so you can detect and analyze when the automated pilot decides differently and why, all in a simulated environment.
  - aaronem 12y ago
    If simulation were perfect, no one would need real flying hours for licensure or type qualification.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      They aren't perfect for humans, who can't replace their eyes for direct video feeds and their internal ears for accelerometer readings. It's hard to simulate a plane for a human, because you need to make physical stuff that acts and sounds and feels like the real thing. For computers, the same isn't true, because you can inject a recorder between its sensors and its "brain" and then disconnect the sensors wholesale and feed input data directly using just software.
    - eric_h 12y ago
      Agreed, but part of the benefit of real flying hours is to expose the human pilot to situations of fear and stress (and to learn how to deal with that). A computer, on the other hand, has no need to be trained to deal with those particular emotions.
6stringmerc 12y ago
Cargo planes? Really? There is some innate arrogance that seems to deny the prospects of the true dangerous nature of human flight. Let me put it this way: How about frame the comment around UAVs / drones - once the genuis-level programmers and designers can get a drone carry a raw chicken egg from Atlanta to Boston without breaking it, then we can talk about what long-view implications might be. I mean, there have been decades of development trying to advance safety. People are already trying. It's not being a Luddite to put forward that the human brain is still a better pilot than a program.
- socialist_coder 12y ago
  You're right, I should have mentioned drones as well.
- socialist_coder 12y ago
  > It's not being a Luddite to put forward that the human brain is still a better pilot than a program. So, because a human brain is better now, we should ignore the possibilities of any other path? We should simply give up working on flying/driving AI because in its current state, in its infancy, it isn't as good? That is an absurd view and that is what I would describe as Luddite.
stcredzero 12y ago
It's like not anyone is saying we should do this RIGHT NOW WITH NO GOING BACK! Your quip just inspired a wonderfully bad story idea: North Korean agents steal a DNA sample from Elon Musk, and infuse their leader with his DNA. In a short time, changing him into Kim Jong Elon. North Korea becomes a futuristic place with Hyperloops and self driving cars. But is this shiny new wonderland all that it's cracked up to be? (Finally, a story so implausible, even Seth Rogen wouldn't open the script!)
TrevorJ 12y ago
I think its more because those who know technology, know the shortcomings of it. Sure, AI might be better in the future, but you can't design today's systems around tomorrows technology.

tormeh 12y ago

>properly programmed and designed And therein lies the problem. HN commenters know how fragile technology is.

aaronem 12y ago

> We can't really make those systems more safe than they are right now. True, more or less. > We need a paradigm shift. Really? Perfect safety is a pipe dream, and the rule of diminishing returns applies here as everywhere else. Compared to modern aviation, the early days were just chock-full of accidents and incidents, because we hadn't encountered the 90% cases in order to solve them. Happily, we've solved those cases and more, which is how we come to have the luxury of confusing edge and corner cases, like deliberate CFIT (e.g. Germanwings 9525), with major safety issues. Introducing full-on, pilotless cockpit automation is going to have the same high incident rate that early aviation did, for the same reasons -- we just don't know enough about the problem domain to account for the 90% cases, so we're going to have to see them fall out of the sky and hit the ground before we know how to solve them. And, of course, there's also the fact that pilotless aviation can't actually solve all the edge and corner cases of piloted aviation, but only some of them. It'd make deliberate CFIT a thing of the past, sure! But deliberate CFIT, and things like it, aren't the only reasons why a commercial aircraft falls out of the sky. Sometimes it's maintenance error; sometimes it's equipment failure; sometimes we don't even know what happened. Pilotless aviation won't address all of these cases. Eventually, I don't doubt, we would achieve the same excellent safety record with pilotless aircraft that we see right now with piloted ones. The question boils down to whether, in order to address a subset of the corner cases in piloted aviation, it's worth accepting the costly process of working out the 90% cases in pilotless aviation. I really do not think it's Luddism to regard the tradeoff there as not worth making.

icebraining 12y ago
I disagree. The physics of flying the plane are the same regardless of who is flying it, and we can have as much training data as we want. Unlike with early aviation, you know have a base metric to measure against (human pilots), and so you can detect and analyze when the automated pilot decides differently and why, all in a simulated environment.
- aaronem 12y ago
  If simulation were perfect, no one would need real flying hours for licensure or type qualification.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    They aren't perfect for humans, who can't replace their eyes for direct video feeds and their internal ears for accelerometer readings. It's hard to simulate a plane for a human, because you need to make physical stuff that acts and sounds and feels like the real thing. For computers, the same isn't true, because you can inject a recorder between its sensors and its "brain" and then disconnect the sensors wholesale and feed input data directly using just software.
  - eric_h 12y ago
    Agreed, but part of the benefit of real flying hours is to expose the human pilot to situations of fear and stress (and to learn how to deal with that). A computer, on the other hand, has no need to be trained to deal with those particular emotions.

6stringmerc 12y ago

Cargo planes? Really? There is some innate arrogance that seems to deny the prospects of the true dangerous nature of human flight. Let me put it this way: How about frame the comment around UAVs / drones - once the genuis-level programmers and designers can get a drone carry a raw chicken egg from Atlanta to Boston without breaking it, then we can talk about what long-view implications might be. I mean, there have been decades of development trying to advance safety. People are already trying. It's not being a Luddite to put forward that the human brain is still a better pilot than a program.

socialist_coder 12y ago
You're right, I should have mentioned drones as well.
socialist_coder 12y ago
> It's not being a Luddite to put forward that the human brain is still a better pilot than a program. So, because a human brain is better now, we should ignore the possibilities of any other path? We should simply give up working on flying/driving AI because in its current state, in its infancy, it isn't as good? That is an absurd view and that is what I would describe as Luddite.

stcredzero 12y ago

It's like not anyone is saying we should do this RIGHT NOW WITH NO GOING BACK! Your quip just inspired a wonderfully bad story idea: North Korean agents steal a DNA sample from Elon Musk, and infuse their leader with his DNA. In a short time, changing him into Kim Jong Elon. North Korea becomes a futuristic place with Hyperloops and self driving cars. But is this shiny new wonderland all that it's cracked up to be? (Finally, a story so implausible, even Seth Rogen wouldn't open the script!)

TrevorJ 12y ago

I think its more because those who know technology, know the shortcomings of it. Sure, AI might be better in the future, but you can't design today's systems around tomorrows technology.