From the abstract
reply> This paper suggests that the increased interest in human factors among engineers reflects the irony that the more advanced a control system is, so the more crucial may be the contribution of the human operator
Makes sense.
Does it? Couldn’t you steelman this argument and claim the opposite, that the more advanced a control system, the more likely it is that human error is what causes its malfunction?
replyThose don't seem like mutually exclusive statements to me. In fact, they feel like two sides of the same coin. It's almost by definition that more advanced control systems are exactly the ones where tractable sources of error (mechanical, environmental, etc) have been eliminated, controlled or otherwise accounted for as much as possible, to the point that the only remaining likely problems come from where the system interfaces with humans in some way.
replyWhich makes those interfaces the most critical parts of the system.
> the level of expertise it takes to distinguish a counterfeit from the real thing has been increasing as models improve
replyModel produced code compiles the same as human produced code. My kids would call this “copium”.
Then why did we ever invent something higher-level than Assembly, if it all compiles the same? Has every programmer in the last 50 years been affected by a skill issue?
reply