“[As] machines become more and more intelligent people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones.” - Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber
The quote, taken from a footnote on page 226 of the Big Switch (Nicholas Carr, WW Norton & Co, 2008), is typical of many from people who believe machine-based intelligence will one day equal, and even surpass, that of humans. The day is coming, they say, when machines will be in control. (Beware the Borg! Assimilation is inevitable,so enjoy the hive.)
But I wonder if any machine could have made the same decisions, in the same time frame, and with the same precision, as Captain Sullenberger did when he guided his A320 to a safe "landing" in the Hudson, saving the lives of 155 people. He was able to deal with the complexity of the situation because of his training, education, experience, and attitude. Sullenberger was able to quickly assess the situation, balance a myriad of inputs, process all of the observed data, compare it against what he already knew and perceived, make instant decisions, with precision, and give control inputs to a "dead stick" aircraft that resulted in the best possible outcome. No computer will come close to being able to do that in my lifetime.
AP photo/Trela Media
Circled in white, US Airways Flight 1549 is going down toward the Hudson River - The Jersey Journal Friday January 16, 2009, 12:36 PM
Mr. Kaczynski's theory only works for certain circumstances. When dynamic complexity enters the picture, decision support systems simply fail. Dynamic complexity involves non-linearity in multiple relationships amongst numerous factors. A good example is the stock market. Throw a few trillion dollars into financial companies and the stock market should go up, right? Price of a barrel of oil goes down and the price of a gallon of gas should follow. When situations don't follow logic, you can assume complexity is at work.
Comments