Jump to content

Are pilots going to be replaced by AI?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I’ll see your “Miracle on the Hudson” where Sully did better than a computer and raise you a Colgan 3407, an Air France 447, and an Atlas 3591 where the humans caused the crashes.

I don’t blame you for that bet at all. It is a very safe bet in which you hold all the cards for 3 reasons:

1) There are 6000 years of human history in which to document and study human fallibility. With CVR’s, radio tapes, radar plots, ADSB etc., it’s even easier to prove, probe and dissect our screw ups.

2) There is not nearly the scrutiny or headlines when pilots turn potential disasters into non events, especially if they interrupt the chain early. No one notices or cares.

3) There is no data on Artificial Intelligence flying airplanes. So it is easy to speculate that it will be wonderful. Maybe it will be but we can’t KNOW that till data proves it. The wonderful technology we now enjoy does not prove the benefits of Artificial Intelligence. That is a whole n’other ballgame!

 I’m not saying you or anyone else is wrong! How could I know that. I am simply skeptical and have a gut feeling that if AI does come to airplanes there are going to be some spectacular failures before it is all said and done. 
Am I allowed that opinion without being considered a Neanderthal?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I don’t blame you for that bet at all. It is a very safe bet in which you hold all the cards for 3 reasons:

1) There are 6000 years of human history in which to document and study human fallibility. With CVR’s, radio tapes, radar plots, ADSB etc., it’s even easier to prove, probe and dissect our screw ups.

2) There is not nearly the scrutiny or headlines when pilots turn potential disasters into non events, especially if they interrupt the chain early. No one notices or cares.

3) There is no data on Artificial Intelligence flying airplanes. So it is easy to speculate that it will be wonderful. Maybe it will be but we can’t KNOW that till data proves it. The wonderful technology we now enjoy does not prove the benefits of Artificial Intelligence. That is a whole n’other ballgame!

 I’m not saying you or anyone else is wrong! How could I know that. I am simply skeptical and have a gut feeling that if AI does come to airplanes there are going to be some spectacular failures before it is all said and done. 
Am I allowed that opinion without being considered a Neanderthal?

I agree completely!  When it comes to basic technological advances and single-pilot airliners, I come down firmly in the camp of seeing both sides and knowing that we’re definitely not there yet.  And I’m not talking about AI- like you said, that’s a whole other ballgame.

I am sure that increases in technology have made air travel safer, but I have no idea how far that concept can be taken into the future.  I think for now we can probably agree that good pilots save airplanes and lives regularly, and technology can often save bad pilots.

And like many here, I seriously doubt that I will see pilotless airplanes in my lifetime.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked Bard this question and it said:

 

It is unlikely that AI will completely replace pilots in the near future. However, AI is already being used to automate some aspects of flying, and it is possible that AI could eventually take over some of the more routine tasks that pilots currently perform. This would free up pilots to focus on more complex tasks, such as decision-making and problem-solving.

 

There are a number of challenges that would need to be overcome before AI could completely replace pilots. One challenge is that AI systems need to be able to handle a wide range of situations, including unexpected events. Another challenge is that AI systems need to be able to make decisions that are in the best interests of passengers and crew.

 

Despite these challenges, it is possible that AI could eventually replace pilots in some cases. For example, AI could be used to fly small, unmanned aircraft. AI could also be used to fly long-distance flights, where human pilots would not be needed to rest.

 

Overall, it is likely that AI will have a significant impact on the aviation industry in the future. However, it is unlikely that AI will completely replace pilots in the near future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, affricate said:

I asked Bard this question and it said:

 

It is unlikely that AI will completely replace pilots in the near future. However, AI is already being used to automate some aspects of flying, and it is possible that AI could eventually take over some of the more routine tasks that pilots currently perform. This would free up pilots to focus on more complex tasks, such as decision-making and problem-solving.

 

There are a number of challenges that would need to be overcome before AI could completely replace pilots. One challenge is that AI systems need to be able to handle a wide range of situations, including unexpected events. Another challenge is that AI systems need to be able to make decisions that are in the best interests of passengers and crew.

 

Despite these challenges, it is possible that AI could eventually replace pilots in some cases. For example, AI could be used to fly small, unmanned aircraft. AI could also be used to fly long-distance flights, where human pilots would not be needed to rest.

 

Overall, it is likely that AI will have a significant impact on the aviation industry in the future. However, it is unlikely that AI will completely replace pilots in the near future.

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

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andy95W said:

I agree completely!  When it comes to basic technological advances and single-pilot airliners, I come down firmly in the camp of seeing both sides and knowing that we’re definitely not there yet.  And I’m not talking about AI- like you said, that’s a whole other ballgame.

I am sure that increases in technology have made air travel safer, but I have no idea how far that concept can be taken into the future.  I think for now we can probably agree that good pilots save airplanes and lives regularly, and technology can often save bad pilots.

And like many here, I seriously doubt that I will see pilotless airplanes in my lifetime.

Your thoughts mirror mine exactly. That’s a great line about good pilots saving airplanes and technology saving bad pilots! I suspect Alpha Floor alone has saved more planes than a few!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have totally exhausted this thread. Would one of you folks please come up with another topic about which we can argue?:lol:

I am surprised that our Tesla buddy didn’t chime in on this thread. I really enjoy his posts because he never gets mad, even if the whole forum disagrees with him! He just puts his head down and plows ahead.  Like Timex he takes a lickin, but just keeps on tickin! I think his handle is A64 or something like that. He is obviously as are most of you very intelligent ……and opinionated !:D

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I think his handle is A64 or something like that. He is obviously as are most of you very intelligent ……and opinionated !:D

If we weren't obsessive and opinionated, we wouldn't all be Mooney fanboys hanging out here every day . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

I think we have totally exhausted this thread. Would one of you folks please come up with another topic about which we can argue?:lol:

I am surprised that our Tesla buddy didn’t chime in on this thread. I really enjoy his posts because he never gets mad, even if the whole forum disagrees with him! He just puts his head down and plows ahead.  Like Timex he takes a lickin, but just keeps on tickin! I think his handle is A64 or something like that. He is obviously as are most of you very intelligent ……and opinionated !:D

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.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

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.

This a proof that ai is easily distinguishable from humans until the ai can make stubborn irrelevant and off topic snide remarks it won’t be convincing.

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote this very early in in this thread but deleted it without posting because as I read it, it gave me pause…

“The one thing AI lacks, and will always lack is judgement. AI will only be able to access data.  Not just data, but data that a human has conveyed at some point, through their judgement, and judgement is very difficult, if not impossible to impart, because it isn’t finite. 
its cumulative and a function of conscious and unconscious experience, processed without awareness, manifesting in action.”

I deleted it because I couldn’t, and still can’t say with certainty that absence of judgement is a good thing or a bad thing…. Because it is both. 
Maybe I’m an old, stubborn anachronism, maybe I am scared, I don’t want computers replacing human judgement, I prefer to take my chances.

Makes me think of the Rush song “Red Barchetta”.   Seems pretty prescient these days. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I hear that in Germany, actual training and testing is used to weed out people (mostly children) who are not able.  Nothing worse than a 35-mile-per-hour brain driving a 100-mile-per-hour killing machine.

Yeap.  Used to be a 6 weeks course (full time), something like 3 different tests and a significant failure rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One big problem is, we don't have real AI.  We have complex sets of issues/responses.

 

I read somewhere that the biggest problem with self driving cars is that people driving cars do strange things that the self-driving car cannot deal with.  Once they can start dealing with the unexpected, we will be close to real AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One big problem is, we don't have real AI.  We have complex sets of issues/responses.
 
I read somewhere that the biggest problem with self driving cars is that people driving cars do strange things that the self-driving car cannot deal with.  Once they can start dealing with the unexpected, we will be close to real AI.

1. It’s just not dealing with issues, but dealing with them in milliseconds.
2. Complex scenarios like you see a group of children playing with cars parked on the side of the road partially blocking your view. Most of us would unconsciously slow down anticipating a child running out from behind a car.
3. Moral issues, you face with 2 obstacles blocking the road, a deer and a child, you can’t stop in time, which do you hit?

There is hardware issues: cameras capable of distinguishing between a child and sign with a child painted on it from a distance. Bad weather blocking sensors, etc. CPU power.
And then the software issues.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

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.

It wasn’t too bad though the Auto Thrust was deferred. Almost had to fly like it was a real airplane!:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

This a proof that ai is easily distinguishable from humans until the ai can make stubborn irrelevant and off topic snide remarks it won’t be convincing.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rbp said:

This is definitely has been one of the most tendentious topics in recent memory

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

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.tens

 

and contentious 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Headline: Pilot Unions Form Coalition to Oppose Single-Pilot Operations, Citing Safety Concerns and Profit-Driven Motives

The only reason that 3 competing pilot unions would form a coalition to try to stop single pilot operations is because they know it is a imminent real threat to their employment.

Notice that it is 3 international pilot unions (not the APLA) banding together - no wonder the concept that airlines have "profit-driven motives" is foreign and confusing to them.

I am sure their strategy will be brilliant - go on strike while being made redundant.

The same fight is going on with rail - in North America and Europe.  The industry is pushing for single man rail crews in the cab.  The UK rail unions continue to strike for 2- man crews.  However apparently the European unions have already given up on freight trains and are operating those with single man crews.

Maybe the logical progression in aviation will be that freight flights, FedEx, UPS, etc will be the first to go to single pilot ops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I promised myself I wasn’t going to wade into to this conversation again…

there’s PF and PNF— for cargo, what if the AI was trained to do just one of these jobs? If a 250 hour commercial pilot (in a 172!) can do it, how hard can it really be? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rbp said:

I promised myself I wasn’t going to wade into to this conversation again…

there’s PF and PNF— for cargo, what if the AI was trained to do just one of these jobs? If a 250 hour commercial pilot (in a 172!) can do it, how hard can it really be? 

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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2023 at 6:50 PM, 1980Mooney said:

You and others say the line in the sand is “no pilots” up front. But the more likely next step is “one pilot” up front. Is that a line in the sand? 

Many Part 135 operations are already single pilot and I don’t hear anyone complaining other than Pilots Unions.  Perhaps some here arguing that they will only fly with 2 pilots up front have already flown a charter, business or sightseeing flight with a single pilot.  

It will solve the pilot shortage overnight. 

Could one pilot fly the advanced airliners of today?  Of course.  But that does raise a few questions:

1.) how do you prevent a suicide/murder like GermanWings 9525?

2.) how do you prevent the single pilot from making a mistake such as a runway incursion or flying into a mountain at night, or even just falling asleep?

3.) if the answer is to have a means of control from the ground, how do you prevent a hostile actor (terrorist?) from intentionally crashing the airplane from afar?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2023 at 8:15 AM, ArtVandelay said:


Hmmm, I took my 87 up to 150…around a sweeping turn, it tracked like it was on rails, no vibrations. At a more sedate speed I took a picture:

8fb317f12da5f554bfabb3e555b65db5.jpg

Mhhhh...no engine analyzer on this thing?! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.