| |
| ▲ | estearum 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And I think most critically: being able to adapt all of this on the fly when invariably something goes off-plan. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Aviation is over 100 years old. Everything that can possibly happen in ATC has either already happened or can reasonably be anticipated. It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately dangerous to make a human do a machine's job. | | |
| ▲ | thomascountz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You say it “…sounds like a simple problem,” and sure, if you think this is a computer problem, it sounds simple. But if all you’re getting back is indignant sputtering, that’s your cue to explain why it’s simple—explaining something simple shouldn't be hard. What do you actually know? It takes all of two minutes of Wikipedia reading for me to understand why this isn’t simple; why it's actually extremely not simple! If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple". But then, if you're ignoring those things, you’re not really solving the problem, are you? | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple". Those are excuses and encumbrances, not reasons. If they are so important, it leads to a question: what existing automated systems can we improve by adding similar constraints? If these are just "excuses" and not "reasons," then explain how you have determined them as such. I would like to say, "Because knowledgeable people have explained the difference to me." But again, this has come up before, and no explanations are ever provided. Only vague, reactionary hand-waving, assuring me that humans -- presumably not the same ones who just directed a fire truck and an aircraft onto the same active runway, but humans nevertheless -- are vital for safety in ATC, because for reasons such as and therefore. There you are doing it in order to avoid engaging with the substance of what people are saying. There is no substance in the replies. There never is. Only unanchored FUD. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The only difference between an excuse and a reason is the designator's belief as to the validity of the reason provided. You have already said you do not have the expertise required to assess validity, yet here you are doing it in order to avoid engaging with the substance of what people are saying. If these are just "excuses" and not "reasons," then explain how you have determined them as such. |
|
| |
| ▲ | estearum 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Aviation is over 100 years old. Everything that can possibly happen in ATC has either already happened or can reasonably be anticipated. This is just not how complex systems work. N of 1 events happen regularly, which is exactly what makes them challenging. You simply asserting every scenario has been seen before does not actually make it so. |
|
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | while making sure these (already heavily automated) flight systems dont get confused and kill several hundred people Confusion is indeed a common side effect of a job done halfway. Replying:
I'm really confused at the point you're trying to make - you declared yourself not an expert in this field, while loudly declaring it's so easy to automate. Because we've already done harder things. 1000 takeoffs and landings per day equals a trillion machine cycles between events... on the phone in your pocket. It is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof, to say that this task isn't suitable for automation. Why don't you do it then? What am I missing? I'm not qualified to do it, I didn't say I was, and in any event, I don't work for free. I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible. Spoiler: there are no reasons, only excuses. The concrete reason your ideas won’t work is you don’t have any. It's not my job to explain how to do it, it's your job to explain why it can't or shouldn't be done. The extraordinary claim is yours, not mine. Remember how we installed traffic lights all over the roads and now car crashes never happen any more at intersections? Truly automation solves all problems. Hard to respond to an argument of this quality, at least without getting flagged or worse. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible. Spoiler: there are no reasons, only excuses. It sounds like you're not asking anything at all Just to play it out a bit, are you imagining that a pilot would be reporting a mechanical failure upon descent into busy airspace to some type of like AI voice agent, who will then orchestrate other aircraft out of the way (and not into each other) while also coaching the crippled aircraft out of the sky? Are you imagining some vast simplification that obviates the need for such capability? Because that doesn't seem simple at all to me. | |
| ▲ | JohnMakin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm really confused at the point you're trying to make - you declared yourself not an expert in this field, while loudly declaring it's so easy to automate. Why don't you do it then? What am I missing? | | |
| ▲ | dpark 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Why don't you do it then? What am I missing? I know this was rhetorical but the obvious answer is a complete lack of any actual ideas. “Just automate it” is a common refrain from people who don’t know how to fix the actual issues with any domain. Remember how we installed traffic lights all over the roads and now car crashes never happen any more at intersections? Truly automation solves all problems. |
| |
| ▲ | dpark 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To repeatedly declare something simple to fix, but then have no idea how to fix it, and indeed to declare oneself unqualified to fix it, is kind of an astounding level of hubris. > I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible. The concrete reason your ideas won’t work is you don’t have any. |
|
|
