Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#81

Post by zer00eyz »

rapsey wrote: post #70
zer00eyz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Re-wind the clock: - A google engineer says "google has AGI"... this leaks and is dismissed. - MS writes a paper that says GPT has hints of AGI. - OpenAI signs deal with MS saying they can have everything OpenAI does till they hit AGI. That last one. Thats not a bet you make if you think AGI is a decade away. Its a bet you make if you think your close. OpenAI thought that they were close. They fell for the classi…

> They left because there is no THERE, there.. They left because they lost the power struggle.

That makes zero sense.

If your safety oriented, and your company is close to AGI you stay regardless. Your boss isnt going to push you out because you leave and scream "it will kill us all"... All the safety people have been doing that for years, now they are quite.

If you aren't close, or realize "we're never getting there" leaving, vesting makes sense. There's NO existential risk.

Talk of AGI is hubris, vanity and snake oil.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#82

Post by JKCalhoun »

mrweasel wrote: post #48

The whole idea was/is weird. I can understand undertaking a certain level of risk to get an amazing view of the Titanic, or some other wreck or reef, but that wasn't even what was offered. Regardless of who offered this dive and how it was managed, there would always have been some risk. That risk had to be stupid low for what was offered, a tiny window, offering a really poor viewing experience. It not even like the…

If you look at the passengers they seem to generally be people wholly obsessed with the Titanic. So I don't think these dives were ever going to be attractive to you and I — the more casually curious.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#83

Post by JKCalhoun »

ubermonkey wrote: post #26

Is it "more disturbing," though, really? I mean, privileged rich dude who thinks he knows better than experts wins Darwin award, and some people dumb enough to trust him got to go along for the (one way) ride. I'm not any more disturbed by it now than I was a year ago, and a year ago it barely moved the needle. And then it was only about the 19 year old son of one of the passengers -- even at that age, a child ought…

I was disturbed reading about all of the back-pedaling by the contractors.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#85

Post by xeromal »

azalemeth wrote: post #49

David Lochridge, who oversaw marine operations at the company and who needed to sign off on the transfer, became convinced that Titan was unsafe. In January 2018, Lochridge sent Rush a quality-control inspection report detailing 27 issues with the vehicle, from questionable O-ring seals on the domes and missing bolts to flammable materials and more concerns about its carbon-fiber hull. Rush fired him the next day. (A…

It's a bummer Lochridge tried to halt progress and be fined 10k for opening his mouth. Damn

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#86

Post by voisin »

jessriedel wrote: post #50
Pxtl wrote: post #23

Reminds me of Vonnegut's line from Jailbird (without the stuttering of the character who uttered it), on the principal cause of a massacre: "American amateurism in matters of life and death" I'm a Canadian. As a Millenial of the "just watch a Youtube video and figure it out" generation, and somebody who has watched some things (like housing) get strangled by regulation, I can see the appeal of American libertarianism…

“Seriousness of outcomes” is a bad way to approximate the appropriate degree of regulation. We have many examples of very serious industries (e.g. pharmaceuticals, autonomous vehicles) where overly cautious regulation results in many more deaths on net. Better rules of thumb are “whether externalities are internalized”, “asymmetry in upside vs downside”, “ability to measure outcomes”.

> overly cautious regulation results in many more deaths on net

How do you know this?

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#87

Post by Sharlin »

rvnx wrote: post #34
725686 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? They tested a prototype. It failed. Anyway, they built a full size thing based on the prototype that failed. They charged a lot of money to unsuspecting rich guys. Then, eventually it failed, just as the test suggested it would.

This is where it's actually interesting, it's not prototype -> live and boom. It's the fifth mission or something, and worked for two years. They actually went to the Titanic with that sub and previously succeeded to reach the Titanic, then it's later on, that the vehicle started to become fragile due to multiple reuses.

And this exact failure mode of carbon fiber was well known and understood by engineers – and ignored by Rush.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#90

Post by coldtea »

mrweasel wrote: post #48

The whole idea was/is weird. I can understand undertaking a certain level of risk to get an amazing view of the Titanic, or some other wreck or reef, but that wasn't even what was offered. Regardless of who offered this dive and how it was managed, there would always have been some risk. That risk had to be stupid low for what was offered, a tiny window, offering a really poor viewing experience. It not even like the…

>That risk had to be stupid low for what was offered, a tiny window, offering a really poor viewing experience.

The experience (whether worth the risk or not) was about the adventure and being down there, not the size of the view.

Post reply on HN