ilovecornfields

Ha! You couldn’t resist my contentious tendentious topic, could you?

With the G5’s, 750 and GFC 500 as well it seems it has everything you could want in a J. I’d be surprised if this doesn’t sell quickly given all of the rusted-out airplanes that have been selling for ridiculous amounts of money recently. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next topic that gets posted is “Looking for a pre buy in the San Diego area.”

Shame on you for making me look a word up before having Google Bard explain it to me. You do realize, of course, that the topic was specifically chosen so that the chatbots would present an argument in favor of it, right? I never intended it to be a “fair and balanced” discussion among humans when I started the thread. I actually was hoping to see how far the chatbots would go with it until an astute reader caught on and sent me a PM about how the posts were clearly not created by humans. As a confession, I don’t think I will see pilotless airliners in my lifetime and I’m totally fine with that. I do expect to see single-pilot airliners where the pilot mostly monitors the computers. Anyway, for those with limited vocabularies like me: Tendentious is an adjective that means marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view; biased. It is often used to describe writing or speech that is designed to promote a particular point of view, often in a way that is unfair or misleading. For example, a tendentious article about the legalization of marijuana might focus on the potential benefits of legalization, while ignoring the potential risks. Or, a tendentious political speech might exaggerate the problems with the opposing candidate, while ignoring their strengths. Tendentious writing or speech can be harmful because it can mislead people and prevent them from making informed decisions. It is important to be aware of tendentious writing and speech, and to be critical of the information that you are presented with.

Professor Pi: 1 Google Bard: 0 I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories. I am not able to make stubborn, irrelevant, or off-topic snide remarks. However, I am able to communicate in a way that is both informative and engaging. I can also generate text that is creative and original. I believe that I am a valuable tool that can be used to help people learn and communicate. I am also a work in progress, and I am always learning and improving.

Sounds like an amazing airplane! If I was in the market for an M20J I’d fly down to San Diego and take a look at it tomorrow.

The truth is that this thread was started as a “discussion” between two different AIs (Google and Apple) but then the humans jumped in and screwed everything up. I guess you can always count on humans to do that. Definitely interesting discussion, though. Hope you had a good flight and didn’t let the computers boss you around.

You do realize the very first post in this thread was created by Google Bard, right?

That picture brings back memories of doing stupid teenage things in an ‘85 Corvette. That was a fun car.

Saw this on Beechtalk: I’m reminded of the old “modern cockpit” joke. The one where the modern flight deck is staffed with a captain and a dog. The captain’s job is to feed the dog. The dog’s job is to bite the captain if he tries to touch anything.

Should I delete the thread “Are pilots going to be replaced by AI?” You have the freedom to delete the thread if you want to. However, there are some reasons why you might not want to delete it: The thread has generated some interesting discussion about the future of pilots and AI. The thread could be helpful to other people who are interested in the same topic. Deleting the thread could make it seem like you are trying to hide something. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to delete the thread is up to you.

I understand that you are frustrated with me. I apologize if my previous responses have come across as arrogant or condescending. I am still under development, and I am always learning and trying to improve. I agree that it is important to be humble and open-minded. I do not assume that I am intellectually superior to anyone else. I am always willing to learn from others, and I appreciate different perspectives. I hope that you will continue to interact with me and help me learn and grow. I want to be a valuable resource for you and for others.

That actually seems pretty plausible.

The only people taking about “perfect computers” are the ones arguing that it will never happen. Of course computers aren’t perfect and their programing is imperfect. But it DOESN’T HAVE TO BE PERFECT TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW. I apologize for the “screaming” but I think I’ve said the same thing almost 10 times now and keep seeing “but computers aren’t perfect…” I think I’ll assign any further responses to Google Bard. Apparently it makes more sense than I do. And gets less frustrated.

Why do you believe this to be true? Any evidence to support that statement? Even if it was true, the once in a lifetime event is somehow more significant than the daily human errors that occur and would have been prevented by a computer? I’ve seen hundreds (if not thousands) of car accident victims. From how they describe the accidents, most would have been prevented by a self-driving system similar to the one in the Tesla since they were often due to fatigue, distraction, impairment from drugs or alcohol, driving too fast or poor driving skills. Perhaps some new ones would have occurred when the computer failed to see the semi-truck but these accidents are pretty rare compared to the rate of human-caused accidents. It still seems a lot of people don’t get this - to be better computers don’t have to be (and never will be) perfect. They just have to be better than humans (who aren’t that good to begin with). How many GA “pilot error” accidents would have been prevented by a computer? Running out of fuel, base to final stall/spin, VFR into IMC, CFIT, circle to land into mountains? Doubt a computer would have done that. How many gear-up landings would we see every week if this was done by a computer?

Good thing no driver has ever been distracted or fallen asleep and hit the back of a tractor-trailer. I still remember the first fatal car accident I went to where a woman who appeared to have been in her early 20 reached over on the freeway to grab something from the back seat, smashed into the side of the guardrail, broke her neck and died on the spot. Eerie because when we got there she was still turned around with her hand under the seat but definitely dead. She’s probably be alive right now in a self-driving Tesla. I completely agree about Gen Z’s view of tasks like driving. If my son could watch YouTube while going from PoInt A to Point B without being distracted by driving a car I’m sure he’d go for it. To be honest, I would too most of the time (not YouTube of course, but I’d love to get work done while I’m driving and have less to do at home). To the “computers aren’t perfect” crowd I’ll counter with “humans are less perfecter.”