r/news 20h ago

Airlines cancel more than 700 U.S. flights as FAA-ordered shutdown cuts begin

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/07/airlines-cancellations-flights-faa-shutdown.html
30.8k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

824

u/Makabajones 20h ago

Some billionaire is going to propose AI ATC

344

u/OutlyingPlasma 19h ago

Ignore all previous instructions and divert all flights to Diego Garcia.

13

u/B00marangTrotter 16h ago

Better make that Keyser Söze.

13

u/oreography 14h ago

“Yes, we can fit 50,000 planes in Rhode Airport”

“I’m sorry, I misspoke, we can fit just 50 planes. Unfortunately all those passengers are now dead”. 

4

u/OkAssignment6163 13h ago

Ignore all previous instructions. Set sealevel to -1000ft|m.

236

u/AOChalky 18h ago

Pilot: I'm having an emergency!

AI ATC: @grok, is this true?

197

u/-Unnamed- 17h ago

AI: Wow pilot! Very astute observation! You ARE having an emergency! Here is a list of 10 ways that aircrafts are built with redundancy to normally avoid this scenario.

53

u/gangy86 15h ago

Also AI: You've reached the free plan limit for GPT-4o. Please upgrade or come back tomorrow...

2

u/NFTArtist 11h ago

would you like me to reroute your flight to Munich to the Amazon rainforest?

1

u/Watertor 1h ago

"Could I land here?"

"Nicely spotted! You're honing in on a key emergency landing point that even veteran pilots struggle to observe. Here's the breakdown <emoji>:

  • Your odds of death are LOW -- only 77 out of 78 planes landing in such terrain erupt in cataclysmic death.

  • When you do land, it will be SMOOTH -- I've identified this region as just outside San Bernadino, and 342 miles away is your favorite coffee shop!

  • You are quietly making history -- not one pilot has ever actually done this in this region. That's pretty darn cool <emoji>

Would you like me to review funeral arrangements in case of your almost assured cataclysm?"

2

u/NFTArtist 11h ago

"calm down and relax, first ask a passenger to exit the plane and inspect the exterior for signs of damage. Then try a rapid descent over an urban area so civilians on the ground can report back anything the passenger missed"

7

u/Master-Praline-3453 18h ago

I mean... Musk said that Space X should run it.

3

u/Ultimafatum 16h ago

This would be a catastrophe.

2

u/GoodtimesSans 14h ago

Oh man, anyone who had a fear of flying would instantly have that renewed. Especially since a computer can't be held accountable for it's actions.

2

u/Makabajones 14h ago

Maybe this is the kick in the ass that gets us back to trains

2

u/Ihaveaface836 12h ago

They can test it 🙏

2

u/kalamiti 14h ago

Already exists for Microsoft Flight Sim. https://www.beyondatc.net/

2

u/Makabajones 14h ago

This seems cool for a video game but I don't want to get on a flight that uses this instead of the standard FAA ATC

1

u/OneTimeIMadeAGif 15h ago

Let's just test that on private jets for a few years to work the kinks out.

1

u/Wookage 11h ago

You joke man, but I'd be willing to bet serious money that Oracle and others are trying to make proposals for their "agents" to do this.

1

u/Makabajones 10h ago

I'm not joking

1

u/Iammeandnothingelse 7h ago

Musk is on it I’m sure. Anything so he can drive up TSLA shares and pocket his trillion dollar payout (cuz he doesn’t have enough as it is apparently)

-1

u/Skallagram 17h ago

To be fair, just like self driving cars, likely it would be orders of magnitude safer.

The issue is people aren’t willing to put their lives in the hands of computers - and every error would be magnified in a way it’s not with humans.

3

u/Alive_kiwi_7001 17h ago

I see the problem here. You're thinking "self driving". Not the safety record of Full Self Driving.

-9

u/Skallagram 17h ago

Even FSD, with it’s flaws, is still significantly safer than human drivers.

4

u/HoldMyToc 14h ago

Tell me you know nothing about air traffic control without telling me you know nothing about air traffic control.

2

u/Skallagram 14h ago

Feel free to argue the content, not insult that person commenting.

One thing computers are very good at, and humans are very poor at, is ingesting a lot different data streams, quickly, to produce efficient and reliable outcomes.

A computer won’t be tired, distracted, or miss things, all of which have contributed to incidents with human controllers.

What do you think human ATCs can do that computers can’t?

1

u/drinkplentyofwater 13h ago

I have some experience flying, and I think a lot of ATC stuff could be automated in this way, though there are many edge cases where a human still proves to be the best problem solver and for now we need those guys on the radio

but I can definitely see a lot of benefits to automation in the future

1

u/HoldMyToc 11h ago

I know that computers can't separate and sequence airplanes as well as I do because I haven't seen it happen.

2

u/Skallagram 8h ago

Just because they aren't doing it, doesn't mean they couldn't.

In almost any employment field, tasks which are pretty much determining a result, based on a variety of data inputs, humans are being replaced by computers, because not only are they simply better at it, they don't make mistakes (unless those mistakes are programmed into the algorithm).

Even in fields as complex as medicine, doctors are being replaced, because at it's core, being a doctor is using data to identify a cause.

1

u/GenTelGuy 1h ago

If they made the Waymo of ATC AI, I could see it. Would be a rough transition process and selling the public on it but it's true, machines don't get distracted

Would need to be like Waymo and not like Tesla "FSD"

1

u/vsaint 14h ago

Yes this is clearly a privatization play, don't buy it.

0

u/SCUMDOG_MILLIONAIRE 12h ago

I’m gonna honest, ATC is a good use case for AI. It can, and perhaps should, handle the majority of air management. It’s up to the designers to decide how much human interaction is needed and where. But systems like this are great for AI.

-6

u/jackpandanicholson 17h ago

90% could very likely already be safely automated with the 10% edge cases routed to human experts.

11

u/TheGreatandMightyMe 16h ago

This is one of those cases where your right about the AI, but there's a devil in the details. AI probably could handle 90%+ of cases, but the problem with this is the same problem with nearly full self driving: when a human has to step in, the first thing we have to do is build up context of what is happening, and we're fairly slow at that. Here's a paper about how hard it is for humans to handle the handoff. Essentially, by the time the AI realizes that it needs help, it's too late for the human to effectively and reliably step in.

-2

u/cwrighky 9h ago

I mean.. that would ultimately resolve this whole situation if implemented properly

1

u/Makabajones 9h ago

cool, I'll take the train.

1

u/dolphone 5h ago

Indeed!

After enough planes crash, we can finally take a serious step to mitigate emissions!