GrizzleBoy wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:37 pm
MadMax wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:15 am
mendis wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:02 am
And yet, the world is running on human built systems! What's more, we have even reached Mars with such imperfect systems!
The world goes wrong quite often. You might see it in your favorite evening news bulletin.
Mars missions have something like a 70% failure rate, either in the launch phase (rocket fails), the cruise phase, or the landing (usually in the entry and descent phase). Some even get to the surface safely and then fail to deploy successfully.
Any AI system is only as good as the programming and the teaching it's given. Both of those are prone to human bias and error. And if you use an AI to design and teach another AI, you'll still have the original errors and biases baked in to the original and these will be inherited to some degree by subsequent systems.
Humans aren't God. We can't do perfect.
Talking about not having a high success rate of landing robots on literally other planets as justification for why computer aided penalty systems can't work is very strange lol.
And to be honest China, India and Nasa are doing quite well at the moment with rovers and orbiter in amd around Mars.
Anyway, the penalties don't even need to be given out by AI.
If some sensor reads that a car lef the track, it can just throw up a flag for stewards to review.
All decision making doesn't need to be taken away from humans.
Previous poster said that human made systems got to Mars. I just pointed out that the success rate of that isn't great and so not a good advert for selling a technological solution. Heck, if you wanted to show more success, use the example of modern precision-guided munitions. At least they do actually work most of the time.
If the AI throws up a flag and leaves it to humans to decide what to do, that's absolutely no different to the current system in terms of outcomes. You've just spent some money on shiny things on top of whatever is already being spent.
Any decent system will be self-enforcing and won't need any external influence. That brings us back to a surface the drivers absolutely don't want to drive on - they'll stay within limits because the alternative is an automatic time loss that they can't argue about.
We hear commentators and others say things like "if there was a wall there, they would stay on the track". We can't realistically put walls everywhere so we need a similar, safe, alternative. Good old fashioned gravel works well but it does get dragged back on track and so potentially disadvantages others.