Vague references to other debate issues.
Yeah i write software for a living, so i kind of have an idea of how it works. Saying thats like "training a computer" is more of a symbolic comparison as it works nothing like training. You had said "The FAA requires all this training, why would they all of a sudden just let a computer do it".... I'm just trying to say thats two totally different things. Instead of the FAA requiring training, which is a human way of cutting down on errors and mistakes, you instead require a lot of QA, a lot of testing, a lot of research, refactoring etc. etc. And I'm pretty sure that the FAA would require that this stuff seem pretty safe before ever allowing it to be used.
Originally Posted by GloriaInTX
If you have doubts it could ever be that safe I'm sure you aren't alone. Its hard for us to make that leap and accept that there are so many things that computers do better than humans. For accident causing scenario that is missed, there are thousands of other things that computers can do that humans can't. Ultimately it will become fairly evident which one causes more accidents.
If at that point people are still squeamish about it, then its its simply psychological. To reiterate something i've heard around here before, it would be good if people made decisions based on facts, not emotions. For the record, i'm using that quote to try to get people to see pilot-less plains in a different light, and not to change anyone's opinions of anything else.
The only thing that i can think of is that people feel more emotionally troubled by the idea of people losing lives at the hand of a computer than they do losing their lives at the hand of a human.
Again....talking about pilots and computers...
..not anything else.