I am a big fan of unmanned applications...but my occupation is based on the use of commercial UAV technology, so I guess I'm biased in that regard.
But it raises an interesting question about the simplistic reaction that nearly every layperson falls back on is "OMG what if it crashes into something? OR what if something goes wrong and there's nobody onboard to stop it!!"
I find it difficult to accept this reasoning. First off, lets agree that everything that moves is a potential hazard. Be it a car, train, boat or airplane. Heck even walking is a hazard! Anything that moves has the potential to collide with other things.
Now lets presume these moving objects are operated by a human. The human task is to press buttons, move levers, and monitor operations of systems. Agreed?
Now lets presume something goes wrong. The human now assumes the task of FIRST trying to ascertain what went wrong. A time consuming process when seconds can mean the difference. As a human, the operator is only able to sort out the problem with slow logic, founded on training (training may or may no be sufficient for the failure at hand, but that's another story). If the human is able to figure out what went wrong, and press the right buttons, and move the right levers, and reset the right systems to normal, the crisis may be averted. If not, the moving object controlled by the human crashes into another object and the mission is over.
Lets now replace the human with a computer. The computer is provided the exact same training the human had. Of course this training is simply a set of routines that are to be executed in certain circumstances, but for the sake of argument, assume it is all the same. The computer is already a better operator than the human because the computer can never forget. The computer is also faster at accessing the information. Now let's presume the same "something" goes wrong while the computer is the operator. There is a very small fraction of time required by the computer to ascertain what went wrong. The computer is always monitoring the systems at a much higher capacity than the human could. The computer is now able to refer to the correct procedure from it's "training" to attempt to correct the problem, and activate the right buttons, levers, and systems to avoid the crisis. If not, the moving object controlled by the computer crashes into another object and the mission is over.
Same results so far, but the computer has the edge in speed of processing logic.
Now lets presume in both cases, the correct actions taken by either the human or the computer do not work as predicted in "training". Some might say that the human can start trying other solutions that a computer can't think of. I do not agree with this argument. The computer is after all "trained" by humans for appropriate responses, and these other solutions can be pre-programmed into the computer too. Dumb luck aside, I personally believe a computer can have better chance at solving a problem than a human ever could.
Now let's shift the focus to the blame game, which is inevitable in the event of a collision/crash/tragedy.
Blame is irrelative. If something happens, who caused it does not matter. It happened. I don't know how to argue this point other than by being blunt. If a plane crashes and people are killed, who caused it is irrelevant for anything other than trying to seek some satisfaction by pointing a finger at something tangible.
In the legal proceedings that always follow such an incident however, blame is more important. Who gets blamed is not the same as who was at the controls in all cases. Blame gets directed at the deepest pockets. Whoever has the biggest insurance policy is going to be #1 on the blame list. Everyone else is just along for the ride, and if they have insurance, they are ripe for a lawsuit too.
Pilot Joe crashed the plane. Was it his fault? Maybe. Maybe not. Too late to know because pilot Joe and his airplane are no longer with us. But the company that employed pilot Joe probably is, and guess what? They have a big fat 3rd party liability insurance policy! So now they are to blame! Even if they had nothing to do with the decisions made by pilot Joe, they are the next closest tangible thing to put blame on...so off to court it goes.
Now look at it like this...
The computer pilot crashed the plane. Was it the computers fault? Maybe. Maybe not. Too late to know because the computer and the airplane are no longer with us. But the company that bought the computer system and the airplane is, and guess what? They have a big fat 3rd party liability insurance policy! So now they are to blame! Even if they had nothing to do with the decisions made by the computer, they are the next closest tangible thing to put blame on...so off to court it goes. And so now does the developer of the computer software and systems...so the blame game can dig up even more insurance policies to go after.
I guess my point is, that technology will not take a back seat to doomsday predictions. And collisions between moving things will continue to happen until we all stop moving. I would feel no less safe on a plane operated by a computer than I do when I have two alpha males flicking switches in the front office. The fact is I choose to put myself in a tube full of combustible liquid and go with it to 5 miles above the ground. If something bad happens, I don't stand a chance either way.
If I was truly against getting on a computer controlled vehical, then I can just walk. Hopefully I don't trip and fall and kill myself on the rock in the ground. Or worse yet, hopefully that computer controlled bus doesn't run me over...
