alt Hacker News>I think it is more interesting to have 99% of flying done with automated systems but have an LLM focus on recognizing unanticipated situations and recovering or mitigating them.
Seeing how Claude (or any current LLM) perform in even the most low-stake coding scenario I dont think I would ever set foot on a plane where the 1% of most risky scenarios are decided by one.
Replies
General LLMs I would say are uniquely bad at this sort of thing.
I mean if you have a stable plane, then it'll do alright, as it'll mostly fly straight and level (assuming correct trim) reacting to turbulence however, the sampling rate would probably too slow, so you'd end up with oscillations.
For recognising that you're in a shit situation, yeah, it'll probably do that fine, but won't be able to give the correct control inputs at the right time.
Using an LLM doesn't mean it has to take the final decision. You can also use it as a warning system.