If two airplane manufacturers were found to have massive safety issues which nearly led to enormous fatalities (but no one actually died), would you be calling for them to ground their aircraft until safety was made the number one priority?

▲

aeternum 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Except it just happened. Boeing was found to have massive safety issues since they were granted the right to self-certify. It made a lot of news but nothing much changed, they can still self-certify a bunch of stuff.

Runway incursions and midair collisions are another example.

Only airliners are required to have TCAS, smaller planes and helicopters don't even need radios or transponders unless in certain airspace. Midair collisions do lead to fatalities, enormous fatalities if an airliner is involved.

Runway incursions and overruns are similar. They cause lots of fatalities and injuries but only the busiest and largest airports have automated systems to warn when a runway is occupied or end of runway (overrun) arrestor systems. Most still rely on human voice to deconflict.

▲

ls612 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Historically it almost always takes actual fatalities rather than near misses to ground an aircraft, and aviation is famous for its obsession with safety compared to other industries.

▲

gpm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Airplanes have pretty bounded damage. Generally you kill at most a few hundred people. Even weaponized a few thousand. This is a risk profile that allows risk taking with near misses and waiting until something goes wrong to fix it (though doing so is rightfully uncomfortable and frequently unethical).

The people worrying about AI risk are worrying about "it goes wrong once and kills billions of people". That's not a risk profile that allows for waiting to see if the risk is real, you have to prevent it before it happens. It's akin to the risk of the cold war going hot, not even "just" a nuclear reactor irradiating half of europe (which has yet to happen, but is a risk with nuclear reactors, chernobyl got uncomfortably close but ultimately was well contained).

	▲	ozozozd 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Chernobyl was “well-contained?” Blue dogs and generations of cancer would disagree.

▲

emerongi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The question was what would you want. You did not answer the question.

▲

applicative an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

huggingface stores weights and its service is replicated by /countless/ other sites. The world will not change even by one byte if it vanishes tomorrow