Re:"We'll call it AI to sell it, Machine Learning to Build it"
by nihzm on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @10:38AM
(#37844982)
But there is a very important difference, and that is that airplane autopilots are certified with extremely expensive years long tests to demonstrate failure rates of 10E-9 (once in a billion hours) or even stricter. Whereas a computer vision model is considered “good enough” by the car industry after just a few hundred hours of “self driving” without major accidents, and this is in spite of the fact that the roads are full elements that are definitely a lot more unpredictable (eg. other drivers) than what airplanes usually encounter during landing (that is, a mostly empty runway)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:"We'll call it AI to sell it, Machine Learning to Build it"
by PeterisP on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @01:37PM
(#37847653)
If a plane's autopilot steers the plane into a cliff (and such cases have happened many times, 'controlled flight into terrain' is a thing and in quite a few of those cases the autopilot was involved), we don't consider it a fault of the autopilot, it's working as intended, as it's effective job is to keep the plane straight and level, not to make smart decisions about how to fly - that's up to the pilots.
In a similar manner, if some computer system in a car holds the steering wheel straight and the speed constant, it's working just as well as a plane's autopilot even if it crashes into a parked car at full speed.