> Also, if you have the computer checking everything, then those 5 people that are supposed to be redundantly computing the navigation plan are highly likely to be less diligent. Human nature and all. Isn't that likely to result in a worse outcome?
I'm not sure I've even seen a situation in practice where an additional safety check made the situation worse. Those same people that shirk their duties and half-ass their job under the assumption the computer will just find the problems generally make a plethora of other mistakes if a computer isn't there to double check.
Computer verification of work, usually done by applying rules and heuristics, is useful and when done well, and roughly analogous to an additional human checker IMO. If policies and expectations are set right, it's a better outcome.
This may or may not follow for the initial calculation being done by computer and then checked by a human. Some of the competitiveness of people to make sure they do the job well and don't need fixes from a computer/human checker go right out the window and perhaps that does lead to complacency.
> Also, if you have the computer checking everything, then those 5 people that are supposed to be redundantly computing the navigation plan are highly likely to be less diligent.
This is surprisingly easy to fix. If the computer notices before the human, call that a failure. Say, if the computer spots terrain higher than the current depth within X radius (that wasn't intentionally planned for), that's a failure.
I assume the military already has a regime in place to handle "you dun goofed". You can string failsafes after goofed but before the wall.
> Those same people that shirk their duties and half-ass their job under the assumption the computer will just find the problems generally make a plethora of other mistakes if a computer isn't there to double check.
If they half-ass, but follow the computer fixes, maybe nobody knows they were half-assing. If they half-ass and other people fix it, their half-assing is known and remediations are available.
It's pretty easy to have the computer log and/or notify about failures. Presumably if a person is double checking and notices repeated failures, they would be expected to notify superiors that there's a problem somewhere. I'm not sure why we would assume the computer would do any less.
I'm not sure I've even seen a situation in practice where an additional safety check made the situation worse. Those same people that shirk their duties and half-ass their job under the assumption the computer will just find the problems generally make a plethora of other mistakes if a computer isn't there to double check.
Computer verification of work, usually done by applying rules and heuristics, is useful and when done well, and roughly analogous to an additional human checker IMO. If policies and expectations are set right, it's a better outcome.
This may or may not follow for the initial calculation being done by computer and then checked by a human. Some of the competitiveness of people to make sure they do the job well and don't need fixes from a computer/human checker go right out the window and perhaps that does lead to complacency.