Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#2Similarly, I'm worried that auto-drive and smart cruise control systems will take care of highway driving in the normal case, but when things go wrong and the auto-driver disengages, the human at the wheel will have forgotten that a car traveling at 60mph behaves differently than one traveling at 25mph. With aircraft, we can mitigate this risk by forcing pilots to spend extra time in the simulator, keeing their feel for the aircraft from decaying too badly. I'm not sure what the solution is for drivers. Maybe we can force everyone to play a racing sim for a few hours every month ;)
Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#3Except, Google's driverless cars have now logged over a million fully automated miles. It is a proven technology. These aren't exploratory machines going where no human has gone before, they're out there on the road doing what we've all been doing for a hundred years already.
I get the impression this article is just a shill for his book.
Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#4The thing that worries me about semi-autonomous cars is that we might end up in the same place we've ended up with aircraft. Aircraft are sufficiently autonomous in nominal conditions that pilot skills atrophy, and then when the plane encounters adverse conditions, these de-skilled pilots simply do not respond correctly to the problem, crashing the plane. Specifically, I'm thinking of something like Air France Flight…
Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#5The thing that worries me about semi-autonomous cars is that we might end up in the same place we've ended up with aircraft. Aircraft are sufficiently autonomous in nominal conditions that pilot skills atrophy, and then when the plane encounters adverse conditions, these de-skilled pilots simply do not respond correctly to the problem, crashing the plane. Specifically, I'm thinking of something like Air France Flight…
Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#6The thing that worries me about semi-autonomous cars is that we might end up in the same place we've ended up with aircraft. Aircraft are sufficiently autonomous in nominal conditions that pilot skills atrophy, and then when the plane encounters adverse conditions, these de-skilled pilots simply do not respond correctly to the problem, crashing the plane. Specifically, I'm thinking of something like Air France Flight…
Yeah, maybe drivers will deskill. cars will fully automate much faster than planes. google's little fleet has racked up a million miles. The 80% solutions will turn into 95% solutions in a few iterations, then 99.99% solutions in a few more, then a long tail of fixing edge cases as they are discovered.
Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#7Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#8The thing that worries me about semi-autonomous cars is that we might end up in the same place we've ended up with aircraft. Aircraft are sufficiently autonomous in nominal conditions that pilot skills atrophy, and then when the plane encounters adverse conditions, these de-skilled pilots simply do not respond correctly to the problem, crashing the plane. Specifically, I'm thinking of something like Air France Flight…
Silly suggestion: have the copilot pilot spend the flight playing crash-recovery scenarios that reset every `random.randint(30,90)` minutes. When there is an actual emergency, plug him in to the actual avionics. It would be kinda like [work of fiction you probably should have read by now].
Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#9Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian
#10The thing that worries me about semi-autonomous cars is that we might end up in the same place we've ended up with aircraft. Aircraft are sufficiently autonomous in nominal conditions that pilot skills atrophy, and then when the plane encounters adverse conditions, these de-skilled pilots simply do not respond correctly to the problem, crashing the plane. Specifically, I'm thinking of something like Air France Flight…
I thought the pilots got confused because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes#Alternate... not, particularly, because of de-skilling. I'm going to use a stupid metaphor, that's perhaps ton totally apt. In that case it's kind of like reversing the gas and break pedals. 99.9% of the time, practically all your time behind the wheel the car behaves one way, but in this one special circumstance, the 'nor…
- temporary inconsistency between the measured speeds, likely as a result of
the obstruction of the pitot tubes by ice crystals, causing autopilot
disconnection and reconfiguration to alternate law;
- the crew made inappropriate control inputs that destabilized the flight
path;
- the crew failed to follow appropriate procedure for loss of displayed
airspeed information;
- the crew were late in identifying and correcting the deviation from the
flight path;
- the crew lacked understanding of the approach to stall;
- the crew failed to recognize that the aircraft had stalled and
consequently did not make inputs that would have made it possible to
recover from the stall.
Of those six, three can be attributed to skills atrophy: failure to follow procedure for loss of displayed airspeed information, lateness in identifying deviation from the flight path, and failure to recognize stall. These are all skills that pilots are taught when they're certified to fly a given aircraft. The fact that they didn't have them means that they forgot, or, in other words, they didn't have enough ongoing training to keep their skills fresh for emergencies.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re...