SillyQuestions
Contributor
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 60
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
But if you're diving AI then I imagine you're diving an SPG and HP hose too.
So now you have the SPG and HP hose and the AI.
Should Shearwater add Air Integration to its computers?
- Thread starter boulderjohn
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
But if you're diving AI then I imagine you're diving an SPG and HP hose too.
So now you have the SPG and HP hose and the AI.
Hi Lorenzoid,
We have debated this point several times, but I stand by my analysis. You posited a theory, perhaps logically plausable, for the possible of increased failure in computer mode due to AI. Under the scientific method, this theory must be matched against observable, repeatable real-world observation. There is an enormous amount of observed, real-world data on AI computers, and none of the data supports the presence of AI software or circuits as a failure mode for the computer's dive mode calculations. In fact, the lack of any such failure over an enormous data set is positive evidence that the theory is not a valid predictor of events. Thus, it should not drive decisions.
To use your example, the compass and bluetooth hardware and software have caused nary an eye blink for Shearwater. Even more important, what about all that rebreather hardware, software, and even physical connectivity failure risk? AI risk is a pittance compared to this (since it is non-existent as far as the data shows), but the most dedicated OC tech divers still embrace Shearwater.
There is no need for assurances or guarantees that the AI software or code is "walled off" from the computer functions so as to be independent and isolated. All AI computers either are coded or operate like this and it seems to be working as intended. Another question, the Shearwater runs two algorithms, Buhlman and VPM. Are you satisfied that these are "walled off" and that the computer will not cross-link these so as to mess up your deco? I don't think you or anyone else has this concern. AI software has been solved by many manufacturers, as has dual altorithms, all without interfering with the computer's functioning.
I do not say this lightly, for example if these were the first days of AI, and there was only logic or theory to go by and little to no real world observation, then perhaps a concern might be justified. I think theoretical concerns are good reason not to migrate "brand new" technology into tech diving, when there is no real-world data to evaluate the technology. That time has long passed, however, with regard to AI.
Given the current state of affairs and known data, there is no basis to conclude that the theoretical risk is in actuality a real one.
What I do find interesting, though, is that apparently formal PADI tech standards state that AI carries a risk of you not only the gas info, but the dive data as well, if the AI fails, thus requiring you to go to your back-up dive plan (either second computer or written plan). Interestingly, PADI tech does not prohibit AI computers, only notes this as a possible risk to account for. This was quoted by Andy (Devon Diver) in the thread "AI computers for tech diving" in the Tech Diving forum.
No AI computer I have ever seen actually works like this. How does PADI come up with this? They, to be sure, have an "in" with the diving industry and more access to information than I could ever have. Do they actually know something, or have real data, or are they going by the theoretical concern? I would like someone from PADI's development of these standards to weigh in on this because, as you know, this topic is of serious interest for a lot of people.
Best Regards
We have debated this point several times, but I stand by my analysis. You posited a theory, perhaps logically plausable, for the possible of increased failure in computer mode due to AI. Under the scientific method, this theory must be matched against observable, repeatable real-world observation. There is an enormous amount of observed, real-world data on AI computers, and none of the data supports the presence of AI software or circuits as a failure mode for the computer's dive mode calculations. In fact, the lack of any such failure over an enormous data set is positive evidence that the theory is not a valid predictor of events. Thus, it should not drive decisions.
To use your example, the compass and bluetooth hardware and software have caused nary an eye blink for Shearwater. Even more important, what about all that rebreather hardware, software, and even physical connectivity failure risk? AI risk is a pittance compared to this (since it is non-existent as far as the data shows), but the most dedicated OC tech divers still embrace Shearwater.
There is no need for assurances or guarantees that the AI software or code is "walled off" from the computer functions so as to be independent and isolated. All AI computers either are coded or operate like this and it seems to be working as intended. Another question, the Shearwater runs two algorithms, Buhlman and VPM. Are you satisfied that these are "walled off" and that the computer will not cross-link these so as to mess up your deco? I don't think you or anyone else has this concern. AI software has been solved by many manufacturers, as has dual altorithms, all without interfering with the computer's functioning.
I do not say this lightly, for example if these were the first days of AI, and there was only logic or theory to go by and little to no real world observation, then perhaps a concern might be justified. I think theoretical concerns are good reason not to migrate "brand new" technology into tech diving, when there is no real-world data to evaluate the technology. That time has long passed, however, with regard to AI.
Given the current state of affairs and known data, there is no basis to conclude that the theoretical risk is in actuality a real one.
What I do find interesting, though, is that apparently formal PADI tech standards state that AI carries a risk of you not only the gas info, but the dive data as well, if the AI fails, thus requiring you to go to your back-up dive plan (either second computer or written plan). Interestingly, PADI tech does not prohibit AI computers, only notes this as a possible risk to account for. This was quoted by Andy (Devon Diver) in the thread "AI computers for tech diving" in the Tech Diving forum.
No AI computer I have ever seen actually works like this. How does PADI come up with this? They, to be sure, have an "in" with the diving industry and more access to information than I could ever have. Do they actually know something, or have real data, or are they going by the theoretical concern? I would like someone from PADI's development of these standards to weigh in on this because, as you know, this topic is of serious interest for a lot of people.
Best Regards
Where is this "data"? Data is gathered under controlled circumstances. The absence of reports is not "data."
undrwater
Contributor
Wait. Do some of you feel that you MUST use the transmitter if the computer includes AI? You don't have to. Air info is just another data point.
We can be very confident that air integration will not impact or interfere with a decompression plan as long as the two are unrelated. I know of no current AI computer that uses cylinder pressure info to calculate deco. Does anyone?
If someone can produce some kind of evidence of AI interfering with a schedule, this would be a great place to share it.
We can be very confident that air integration will not impact or interfere with a decompression plan as long as the two are unrelated. I know of no current AI computer that uses cylinder pressure info to calculate deco. Does anyone?
If someone can produce some kind of evidence of AI interfering with a schedule, this would be a great place to share it.
The argument is unforeseen interactions between the components in a complex system, google for therac-25. I think at this point and in this particular application, if you manage to produce a DC susceptible to that, it likely has other problems too.
Something that just struck me as ironic:
Lots of people (in other threads) seem to feel like being able to quickly and easily check TTS, pPO2, and CNS% are so important that they want that data on the main screen of their computer.
And then there are people (maybe a different set of people?) that are strident in their insistence that tank pressure has no place on the screen of their dive computer. "You should have a good idea of what your pressure is at any point of your dive without having to look. You should only need to actually check it very occasionally."
Maybe it's just my inexperience showing, but I know what my pPO2 (max) and CNS% are going to be before I get in the water. And those things aren't going to change because I got in and there was s stronger current than expected or I had an extra exciting few minutes for some reason.
Being able to quickly and conveniently check my tank pressure is a much higher priority to me than checking my pPO2 or CNS%. If I have to hit a button to page to look at some data, I would rather have to hit the button to page to pPO2 or CNS%.
It is ironic (to me) that some people think those things are so important to check mid-dive that they want them on the main screen but yet will argue that tank pressure shouldn't be on the computer at all. Shouldn't you also have a really good idea of what your pPO2 and CNS% are without having to check them during a dive?
---------- Post added January 11th, 2016 at 02:43 PM ----------
If I'm understanding your point correctly, then... exactly! The Therac-25 problem is an example of components that are supposed to be working together and failed completely.
The Therac-25 is not a good example at all of what we're talking about here. Adding AI to a computer would not be expected to work "together" with the deco algorithm (and thus possibly screwing it up) at all. The concern from adding AI to a dive computer would be more akin to having your Mac running iTunes and it works just fine (well, as if!) and then you don't want to add Safari because it might screw up iTunes. Sure, it MIGHT. If the computer's OS is poorly designed or either iTunes or Safari is really badly written. In reality, adding AI to a dive computer just does not have significant risk of screwing up deco calculations - assuming its done on a competent computer by competent engineers (e.g. Shearwater and their Petrel) who spend an appropriate amount of time and effort on quality assurance.
Lots of people (in other threads) seem to feel like being able to quickly and easily check TTS, pPO2, and CNS% are so important that they want that data on the main screen of their computer.
And then there are people (maybe a different set of people?) that are strident in their insistence that tank pressure has no place on the screen of their dive computer. "You should have a good idea of what your pressure is at any point of your dive without having to look. You should only need to actually check it very occasionally."
Maybe it's just my inexperience showing, but I know what my pPO2 (max) and CNS% are going to be before I get in the water. And those things aren't going to change because I got in and there was s stronger current than expected or I had an extra exciting few minutes for some reason.
Being able to quickly and conveniently check my tank pressure is a much higher priority to me than checking my pPO2 or CNS%. If I have to hit a button to page to look at some data, I would rather have to hit the button to page to pPO2 or CNS%.
It is ironic (to me) that some people think those things are so important to check mid-dive that they want them on the main screen but yet will argue that tank pressure shouldn't be on the computer at all. Shouldn't you also have a really good idea of what your pPO2 and CNS% are without having to check them during a dive?
---------- Post added January 11th, 2016 at 02:43 PM ----------
If I'm understanding your point correctly, then... exactly! The Therac-25 problem is an example of components that are supposed to be working together and failed completely.
The Therac-25 is not a good example at all of what we're talking about here. Adding AI to a computer would not be expected to work "together" with the deco algorithm (and thus possibly screwing it up) at all. The concern from adding AI to a dive computer would be more akin to having your Mac running iTunes and it works just fine (well, as if!) and then you don't want to add Safari because it might screw up iTunes. Sure, it MIGHT. If the computer's OS is poorly designed or either iTunes or Safari is really badly written. In reality, adding AI to a dive computer just does not have significant risk of screwing up deco calculations - assuming its done on a competent computer by competent engineers (e.g. Shearwater and their Petrel) who spend an appropriate amount of time and effort on quality assurance.
For me I see only one instance in which I think AI would be of interest to me. Sidemount cave. I admit I do have problems seeing the gauges and a nicely lit readout would be lovely.
Ok. Ready for the incoming :shocked2:
Ok. Ready for the incoming :shocked2:
Hydrotac Stick-on Bifocal Lenses, 2.00 - Walmart.com (work great!)
or
BuildMask - SeaVisionUSA (with gauge reader lenses - also work great!)
Who cares? Very useless thread.
I admit the likelihood seems remote, but my only point is that just because such an oddity hasn't been reported by anyone to the knowledge of anyone here on SB doesn't mean it hasn't happened or might not happen. Some posters seem supremely confident there is no potential issue with this. I'm not that concerned--just pointing out that the likelihood is not zero.
My background is actually hardware--and a bit of RF to boot--not so much software, so my initial thoughts were more along the lines of signal interference due to having an RF or ultrasonic data communication system next to (and sharing a power supply with, etc.) the existing circuitry. Would they integrate it all together on an ASIC? Maybe there are isolation issues. I just don't know. Is the potential impact of these AI systems so well established for people here to be SO sure they won't adversely affect anything else under any operational circumstances? Again--I don't know. Just tossing it out there as a (remote?) possibility. I would expect a computer manufacturer to invest a bit of effort looking into this potential issue. Maybe a manufacturer would rather direct their resources elsewhere.
Similar threads
