7 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0

• gnfargbl 12d ago
  I read the article before commenting, as is my habit. A disagreement is not always a failure to process. To be very explicit, my problem is that the article argues that simulation will be a suitable substitute in the software space, as it is in the aviation space. I see no evidence for that; it's pure hypothesis taken as fact.
  • intended 12d ago
    The article proposes a resolution based on the challenge and evidence they (correctly) identify at the start. The simulation solution is backed by their own applied example, and is also the logical intervention based on how the problem is set up. Perhaps Bainbridge is doing more heavy lifting for me, by filling in blanks and gaps that others are finding.
    • gnfargbl 12d ago
      I would say that Bainbridge supports my position, if anything. Take a look at section 2.3 of her paper, where she lists all the reasons why simulation can be unsuitable in preparing for complex incidents: https://davidjusth.com/s/Ironies-of-Automation_Bainbridge_1983.pdf https://davidjusth.com/s/Ironies-of-Automation_Bainbridge_19...
      • intended 12d ago
        Thats an interesting subsection, and I wouldn't say it agrees fully with either position. It both acknowledges the option of using simulations, and the weaknesses inherent in it being unable to simulate unknown unknowns.