Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera...
by dkarl on Monday June 29, 2009 @12:51PM
(#679238)
With respect to cars, I'm a big believer that technology and systems should do everything they can to aid the driver without interfering or taking over the core human task of driving the vehicle.
That's a difficult line to draw, especially when (as you describe with the GTR) the job of the computer is to react faster than the human. For 95% of my car trips, I would feel plenty "in control" if I could tell my car where I wanted to end up and let it take me there however it thought was best, assuming it got me there reasonably quickly and safely. After all, if my car was driven by a human chauffeur, nobody would question whether I was in control. Why would an equally reliable computerized control system present a greater challenge to my feeling of control than a human chauffeur?
Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera...
by ericwaller on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:25PM
(#679285)
The distinction is clearer than you think. The technology in the GTR and F1 cars is limited to "managing braking, shifting, steering, etc." Intent is still left entirely to the human driver. He decides when to brake, the computer helps to do it as efficiently as possible.
Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera...
by dkarl on Monday June 29, 2009 @03:43PM
(#679532)
It's easy to say where the line is right now, but you imply that at some point "intent" might be usurped by the computer. I don't think there's any clear way to define that limit. If the driver merely tells the computer where to go ("the 7/11 on 4th Street") and the car does the rest, does that cross the line? Does that usurp the "core human task of driving?" You are ready to let computers calculate the most efficient way to brake, and I am ready to let them do much more, as soon as the technology is available and reliable. Where is there a clear line in between?
Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera...
by ericwaller on Monday June 29, 2009 @07:53PM
(#679927)
Well it seems clear to me that the "core human task of driving" is the supplying of inputs to the 3 major controls: brake, accelerator and steering wheel (5 if we include clutch and gear selector). I'm not necessarily agreeing with kirse, just saying that the line is well defined.
Adaptive cruise control (and even regular cruise control) definitely crosses the line and is available today in a bunch of mass market vehicles.
Count me in that group. I rarely ever use cruise control (even on long trips) because I've noticed the lack-of-focus effect. I also drive a stick and when I had a rental car it became quickly apparent to me why people can lose focus when driving a slushbox sedan - it's incredibly boring driving an automatic.
With respect to cars, I'm a big believer that technology and systems should do everything they can to aid the driver without interfering or taking over the core human task of driving the vehicle. The Nissan GTR is a great example of a cutting edge car that enables a human to rip around a track faster simply because systems are faster than humans when it comes to managing braking, shifting, steering correction, etc.
F1 cars are the same way; they're incredible combinations of technology and computer systems, but in no way will a computer ever take the place of Michael Schumacher.