Originally Posted by
ThorMos
There is a lot of false information and misinterpretation buried in this thread, for instance that A.I. would make changes to its algorithms as it goes along. After training, you can fix the A.I. 'settings' and therefore the system is predictable if you put an equal system into the same situation. But that's completely beside the point. Are human pilots predictable? Do all human pilots react in the same perfect way or do they fail from time to time? One example given in this thread is AF447. A computer system could be programmed to just fly Pitch&Power and get itself out of the critical situation. Why didn't the pilots do this? Did anybody predict this or did the pilots behave unpredictable?
This gets sort of to the point. We're not comparing systems as to which one is perfect. Merely, which one is better fitted for purpose.
The joy of science is that it recognises its limitations and - more importantly - has mechanisms by which it can self-correct. A purely mechanistic approach based on rules has no such flexibility. It will fly into the cliff because the rules decreed so. A patch will be supplied. In an unexpected situation a stall will occur. A patch will be issued.
The AI systems I've seen were all based on accumulated experience. That's not of much use if you find yourself in an entirely novel one.