An interesting comment I read in another post here is that humans aren't even 99.9% accurate in breathing, as around 1 in 1000 breaths requires coughing or otherwise cleaning the airways.
This is an extraordinary claim, which would require extraordinary evidence to prove. Meanwhile, anyone who spends a few hours with colleagues in a predominantly typing/data entry/data manipulation service (accounting, invoicing, presales, etc.) KNOWS the rate of minor errors is humongous.
The biggest variable though with all this is that agents don't have to one shot everything like a human because no one is going to pay a human to do the work 5 times over to make sure the results are the same each time. At some point that will be trivial for agents to always be checking the work and looking for errors in the process 24/7.
I wouldn't take the claim to mean that humans universally have an attribute called "accuracy" that is uniformly set to the value 99.9%.
The claim is pretty clearly 'can' achieve (humans) vs 'do' achieve (LLM). Therefore one example of a human building a system at 99.9% reliability is sufficient to support the claim. That we can compute and prove reliability is really the point.
For example, the function "return 3" 100% reliably counts the Rs in strawberry. We can see the answer never changes, if it is correct once therefore, it will always be correct because the answer is always the same correct answer. A LLM can't do that, and infamously gave inaccurate results to that problem, not even reaching 80% accuracy.
For the sake of discussion, I'll define reliability to be the product of availability and accuracy and will assume accuracy (the right answer) and availability (able to get any answer) to be independent variables. In my example I held availability at a fixed 100% to illustrate why being able to achieve high accuracy is required for high reliability.
So, two points: humans can achieve 100% accuracy in the systems they build because we can prove correctness and do error checking. Because LLM cannot do 100%, frankly, there is going to be a problem that shows a distinction between max capabilities. While difficult, humans can build highly reliable complex systems. The computer is an example, that all the hardware interfaces together so well and works so often is remarkable.
Second, if every step along a pipeline is 99% reliable, then after 20 steps we are no longer talking about a system that usually works, but one that _rarely_ works. For a 20 step system to work above 50%, it really needs some steps that are effectively at 100%
No, I want to stay focused on movies/series/anime. There's already a lot to handle for me alone working on this, and ebook/music is just different enough that supporting it will need a good amount of efforts.
Turbulence too. With a flat surface, there's no way to anchor to a physical point before pressing. With buttons, there's tactile feedback so you can keep your finger on the button through turbulence until you're certain it's the one you want to press.
My experience even in older cars (where bumps more likely affect your control efforts) is that you also need fixed perches near the important controls. Then, you can rest part of your hand on this perch while aiming fingers to the controls.
I think avionics soft buttons are usually arranged this way, and one can imagine similar touch interfaces that would focus on the edges of screens with robust bezels of some kind.
Your body and arm might be shifting around due to the shaking of the cabin. Your hand is stabilized relative to the buttons or knobs near the perch, so you can aim precisely.
What you don't want under shaky situations are controls way out in the middle of a field of controls where you need to aim precisely and have no perch for your hand. Even worse would be the kind of consumer touch UX with drag or other gestures where you could accidentally input some high magnitude command because a cabin movement pushed your free-aiming hand across the screen...
I don't have to imagine, since I have flown these and similar aircraft. It really does not make a difference. I prefer a mechanical cockpit, but the choice between MFDs and touchscreens is not much of a choice. There are so many buttons on MFDs that you don't really operate by feel.
I would agree if the choice were between mechanical cockpits and either of the other two, but that's not the choice at hand, since most Blackhawks were upgraded to MFDs year and years ago, to the point anyone flying in the military today would be nearing retirement if they had much experience in the original cockpits.
I was in Oslo 5 years ago and even then, the parking meters outside apartments had been retrofitted with charger, and this was on parallel parking spots.
A lot of cold countries have plugs at every parking spot for block heaters. It's not too big a leap to retrofit those for some level of charging.
This is not correct. To the passengers, this just looks like another seat next to a window with a plug installed. It's not a door.
If there was a reconfiguration to a seating standard that required the extra exit, the plug would be removed and a proper door would be installed, with the associated interior pieces.
> To the passengers, this just looks like another seat next to a window with a plug installed. It's not a door.
This is true.
However there's still common hardware in there to allow the plug to be installed and maintained. This is why it's a complicated set of kit vs just bolting in a permanent fixture.
This can sell another generation of smartphones once edge device AI chips hit the market and then people can use their mirror neurons for machine interface.
In Europe they use Engineer interchangeably with Aviation Mechanic.
If this is a tour company, moving a plane, it's not unreasonable that they'd bring a mechanic along in case they needed an inspection on the way. It's cheaper than contracting out a lot of the time.
The odds of all 21 parts being found and them knowing same-business-day that the same part of the same supplier isn't on any of their other planes is approximately zero. The odds of even finding all of these 21 occurrences is slim although not zero.
Just logistically there were likely several days or even weeks where they knew there were fraudulent parts in the wild and didn't know whether or not any in-service planes were affected. You're not required to ground your fleet on a hunch, you are allowed to investigate to see if there is actually an issue before bankrupting your legacy airline. I'm not aware of Delta grounding its entire fleet anytime in recent history, so clearly your statement is false.
Reliability means 99.9% of the time when I hand something off to someone else it's what they want.
Availability means I'm at my desk and not at the coffee machine.
Humans very much are 99.9% accurate, and my deliverable even comes with a list of things I'm not confident about