Atekimogus wrote:Having read the article, the points I made are pretty much still valid since all the article says is that one person slips in concentration, the system recovers more easily from the "backup person". It doesn't say much about the test at all, how clear it was in which direction the "spacecraft" is supposed to go etc. etc.
Skim better next time. The article also states that having two people reduced signal noise the system had to pick through allowing it to more accurately take their input.
This has nothing to do with two brains being better doing the same task or having faster reaction times and EVERYTHING to do with our as yet very undeveloped process of transfering thought into computer-input.
If we could achieve instant and perfect thought to computer-input methods, meaning I give orders with the speed of thought, adding a second brain would add nothing but interference, no matter how good they are trained to operate in sync and the only reason for a second operator would be as a backup.
Tyyr wrote:I know this is a really, really out there notion but maybe and I know this is highly, highly theoretical... they could talk. Shocking, I know, but hear me out. Maybe, two people who have spent extensive time training together presumably to get them to work in sync might have learned to react similarly, I mean with six billion people to choose from they MIGHT have looked for people with compatible thought processes and tendencies then trained them till they operate in sync. Then, if something odd comes up the two might... I dunno, react similarly. If they don't you could even pick someone to maybe lead where with divergent input the computer preferentially uses theirs until they resync.
I guess that is why we have two controls-sets in every plane and pilot and copilot talking about their actions while they SIMULTANIOUSLY fly the plane.......oh wait...what?
As I said, having a copilot as a backup is a good idea, having two pilots and extrapolating from their inputs the supposed action.....that seems stupid.
Tyyr wrote:Given that most of the weapon systems look to be some variation on punching I actually find it more implausible that one person would be in charge of gross movement while the other tries to fight the monster. Given that most physical combat relies on your entire body working together the coordination for one person controlling the legs and another the torso would likely be far more difficult.
Actually that is a reason to have only one operator since moving a human shaped body should come quite naturally....for a human. In comparison to...a tank or something, just saying.
Tyyr wrote:There is a semi-coherent reason being given. It is backed up at least in part by our current experiences trying to control machines with our minds. You yourself came up with a perfectly workable solution for divergent input should it be received with one person being lead and the other reverting to backup. Is it likely going to be used as a team building excuse. YUP! Guess what, it's a movie about giant fucking robots fist punching Godzilla's in-laws directed by a guy who makes modern fairy tales. I'm a hyper critical jackass and even for me there's enough of a reason present for me to roll with it just fine.
I don't really understand why you get all excited about it to be honest. I saw a cool trailer for a movie, wondered how this is supposed to work, wasn't really happy with the imho cheap and uncreative explanation and that is basically it.
Not sure I deserve so much aggro for this....
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.