Artificial or Human Intelligence?

 

LEARNING BY TRAINING

By Arend van Campen

 

SHRINKING THE TECHNOSPHERE

 

I hope that Dmitry Orlov won’t mind that I am borrowing the title of his book, but I wanted to express similar ideas and suggestions that he made in this amazing book. While 5G and other IT apps, drones and cameras may seem to simplify and speed up our lives, they also raise genuine concerns on dependency on the Grid, on electricity, power and on various rare earth materials such as coltan, lithium and cassiterite.

What it means in my view is that we may be eroding skills and interfering with the usual learning process of human beings. We could end up with a society where people can only do what a manual tells them to do. When decision-making is outsourced to automated systems, algorithms or blockchain technology, human awareness, knowledge or skills may become obsolete, perhaps reduced to his or her ability to switch on a system only, without being able to switch it off again.

I am teaching an online course on Cyber Ethics for the Globethics Institute in Geneva and with my fellow lecturer and our students we often discuss the unnatural demand for more technology and ask ourselves whether such Artificial Intelligence - AI - can be programmed ethically. A valid question is this: would AI be able to do the ‘right thing’? We all doubt that very much. Can such systems replace human perception or interpretation without them having a conscience or a soul?

Orlov calls for a preparation without the Grid and that people must never forget how to survive without technology. I am a proponent of this realism. While we now can follow and see what is happening with our offshore pumping station or can see our operators working in a control room in the desert from The Hague or London, we can’t truly control them should something go wrong. We have to rely on the people there, but what I observe AI is causing is a loss of trust. Can we have 100 per cent trust in automated systemic technology or shall we still train the people too?

I have noticed a drive towards maximum automation by marine storage terminals. Every year at the Tank Storage Awards ceremony it is a tech company that wins the prize. It seems that training and education focusing on human soft skills and practical ability is being grossly overlooked and may become insignificant. While millions are being invested in fully automated terminal systems, the knowledge of operating a terminal manually is being lost. This is not wise, because if AI ever loses power, it will stop functioning and thus will need people to take over again. But where are those people? Terminal managers are often skilled in automation, but perhaps have no clue how to line up a pipeline system manually. They give their loading masters computer tablets to fill in the blanks on digital safety checklists.

Perhaps it may work faster, but does it work better? Human beings created AI, but AI could take over any minute now.

This is the latest in a series of articles by Arend van Campen, founder of TankTerminalTraining. More information on the company’s activities can be found at www.tankterminaltraining.com. Those interested in responding personally can contact him directly at arendvc@tankterminaltraining.com.

 

Tank Storage Sustainability Initiative

The most important question we seek to answer is: ‘how can tank storage terminals and refineries sustain themselves in a VUCA world (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) and are not harming life, the environment, and social cohesion?

Because we understand our planet as a living system which depend on interrelated networks, we use and need feedback (information) to verify and test sustainability. This knowledge allows organisations to understand that disorder in the form of unsustainability is inevitable if their foundation is not adaptive to change. We have to understand organisations as complex,  adaptive organisations of communication and integrated and coherently functioning systems. Their long term existence depends on the connectivity and interaction of all activities and relationships. Enhanced sustainability is the way to be sustained for the long term. Regulators and governments demand more compliance to an ever growing number of rules and laws are deemed necessary to protect life and the environment, but can they be sustainable when they would have to be enforced? The criteria to sustain something can be listed as follows; an organisation needs to be viable. Its products or services must not be harmful to life, the environment and social cohesion. So, viability can be understood as sustainability too. Something that can’t live on, is considered non-viable thus unsustainable.

You can now test your sustainability status for free and work with us to achieve maximum sustainability through cooperation, training and learning with and from other people. Just click on www.tssi.ch 

Isgott 6 2020 Updated Edition to be published in July

ISGOTT was first published in 1978 by combining the Tanker Safety Guide (Petroleum) published by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the International Oil Tanker and Terminal Safety Guide published on behalf of the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF). This Sixth Edition updates and replaces the 2006 Fifth Edition and has been reviewed by OCIMF and ICS together with the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH). Support has also been provided by other industry associations, including INTERTANKO, the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) and the Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel (SGMF), as well as specialists in topics such as human factors.

The authors believe that ISGOTT continues to provide the best technical guidance on oil tanker and terminal operations. All operators are urged to ensure that the recommendations in this Sixth Edition are fully understood and are incorporated in safety management systems and procedures.

This new edition covers a range of topical issues including gas detection, the toxicity and the toxic effects of petroleum products (including benzene and hydrogen sulphide), the generation of static electricity and stray currents, fire protection and the growing use of mobile electronic technology.

In addition, the opportunity was taken to include new topics or to significantly reappraise topics previously covered that have undergone a shift in emphasis since the Fifth Edition. These include:
•Enclosed space entry
•Human factors
•Safety Management Systems (SMSs), including complementary tools and processes such as permits to work, risk assessment, Lock-out/Tag-out (LO/TO), Stop Work Authority (SWA) and their linkage to the underlying principles of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code
•Marine terminal administration and the critical importance of the tanker/terminal interface
•Alternative and emerging technologies
•Bunkering operations, including the use of alternative fuels such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
•Cargo inspections
•Alignment with OCIMF’s recently revised Mooring Equipment Guidelines
•Maritime security and linkage to both the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code and industry’s maritime security Best Management Practices (BMP).

The Ship/Shore Safety and Bunkering Operations Checklists have also been completely revised to reflect changes in the understanding of the impact of human factors in their effective use.

The Sixth Edition retains the four-section format of:
•General Information
•Tanker Information
•Terminal Information
•Ship/Shore (Tanker/Terminal) Interface.

 However, the layout has been significantly improved to make the book easier to navigate, with the addition of coloured sections and tabs. The text is supported throughout with new and updated illustrations.

Tank Terminals: The New Normal?

Gradually the world is returning to the New Normal. But what is that Normal, is it normal or abnormal? Does normal mean the same as before the Corona crisis, back to business as usual? Fritjof Capra, the famous physicist said that only an dramatic event would change people’s behaviour, which has actually happened. Careless people were suddenly reminded that they too are mortals, but the issue is that fear of death replaced intelligence by reactionary measures that spelled misery for the most of us for the long term. Whilst many people died from complications accelerated by the virus, billions more suddenly are facing immediate poverty because they are forbidden to work any longer and imprisoned in draconian lockdowns resulting in dehumanising effects.

The Central Bank in the Netherlands has issued a warning that unemployment could double and that economic restabilisation was not to be expected any time soon. So how can we go back to business as usual if the business is no longer there? The old financial paradigm is just not compatible with today’s economic and societal situation.

A new design is needed, not based on growth, which is the mantra central banks and corporations like to use, but balanced business based on the carrying capacity of our planet. A new, sustainable design is needed, because only then we can avoid a next virus outbreak because, as a systems thinker, I can see a direct causal link between Corona and our old ways of doing business. We have to develop a basic income system for everyone, which is in my view the only way to avoid chaos, misery and war. Now is the moment to do so.

It is no use to save path-dependent businesses like airlines, because when people are losing their jobs or international meetings can be done online, the usual frequent flyers won’t fly that much any more. A rationalisation of economics is needed, not based on statistical prognosis but on reality, through real-time information feedback.

You know, it comes down to this: a new design of the economic system must be based on cybernetics, the science of communication and information. We can look at society, understand its complexity, see what is there and what is missing, ease dissent, and work according to the Law of Requisite Variety to create a resilient economy that is circular, self-maintining and self-regulating.

I have been creating the criteria and conditions for such a design. No, they are not utopic, but feasible. But who is able or willing to lead this inescapble paradigm shift? In our storage, handling, transporting and trading business of hazardous cargoes, we can start by looking at how nature sustains itself, and develop non-hazardous products, which will be a good starting point, hopefully copied by other sectors.

One things is very clear, without innovative initiatives from within our industry there will be entropy. I am sure you have noticed that this New Normal is the current state of disorder.

Linear or Non Linear Management Style? Tank Storage Awards 2020

What research shows is that our industry is often managed by linear thinking and actions only which makes management styles reactive rather than proactive or preventive. Linear causality means cause and effect thinking, but our industry is too complex to manage by an outdated cause and effect approach only. Linear management depends on written procedures, guidelines, rules or compliance methods to control risk and manage organisations. Younger, highly educated types of managers are recruited, but often lack the needed on the job experience, making communication between the workers and him or her difficult. This often leads to decisions made on incomplete information. (THE MAIN CAUSE OF INCIDENTS and ACCIDENTS)

Non linear management to control complex systems such as our industry uses information as its energy to steer the organisation (system), rather than control or regulate it. Linear management is risky; I’ll give you some examples: Some technical equipment is not working properly. According to the procedure and planning, the next maintenance date is….  Let’s say in a few weeks. Management is prone to wait for that date because the equipment is not considered critical. Another example: operators report on a risky situation; at one of the truck loading bays there is no fall protection available, but trucks load anyway. The manager knows about this, but his clients are sending trucks that need to load there and he is unable to suspend loading due to commercial interests.  A third example taken from my own experience; a mistake is made by an operator, so management sends him to be trained. But the cause was not the mistake of the operator. The cause is: he had been sent into the field without proper preparation, so the mistake was not direct causal (by him) but by the failure or management that did not do what it was supposed to do and that is to be careful. These 3 examples have one thing in common: information was there but was not used whilst complexity was misunderstood and therefore overlooked.

What happens here is crucial to understand: information that is there should be used to correct in real time (immediately). Real time corrections are often postponed or not executed at all. From a scientific view point this is what is happening: the terminal or refinery is spinning out of control. Linear management is simply not enough. Remember the BP Oil Spill in Louisiana? Same causality; information about possible flaws and broken equipment was ignored. What if a manager does not understand what the operations are doing? Again it is the lack of information…

So we have created a scientifically sound training program for managers and supervisors to learn how to manage their operations using non linear thinking and understand the uncertainty principle. We teach them information theory, systems thinking and cybernetics and explain their scientific bases during the course. They will learn to look at relationships, interdependence of all the workers and stakeholders, their information and interconnectedness. The program also addresses sustainability issues, psychological biases and focuses on how to improve communication, cooperation and conversation. It certainly enhances sustainable and  responsible, safer management, because all relevant information is used all the time.

TTT has been training people worldwide for the last 10 years. Our team worked as an operator, sailor,loading master, captain or manager many years and are always learning. The risk is that managers believe that they already know, so they stopped learning. This behaviour is very risky indeed. Epictetus told us 2000 years ago that 'a man can’t learn what he thinks he already knows.'

This text was written to enter the 2020 Tank Storage Awards in the category Tank Terminal Optimisation. 

Conversation & Risk Management

The beauty of conversation is the exchange of ideas. We may not always agree, but it is the best human method to listen and learn. But what happens when you think you have exchanged ideas and one party nods as if he has listened, but then turns around and does the opposite? I was recently asked to assess a company because human errors were costing money. The management asked me to find so called 'learning gaps.' I found them, but not just at the workers level, but mainly in management. The managers were holding on to a top-down, hierarchical management system which was outdated and was blocking the information feedback flow needed to control, manage and steer the company. So, I advised that management needed training and to learn a new way of systems thinking and cybernetics. Despite the proof I offered and the solutions I suggested, these were contemptuously rejected as if Bertrand Russell was still alive. He wrote the 'Value of Philosophy' and stated that philosophy is the only science that asks 'all' the questions. Refusing to listen would mean that no learning would be possible and consequently no adaptation nor control of the organisation. The information in the form of 'negative feedback' which does not mean 'bad' feedback, but means correcting information, was disregarded, because it would have meant that management and not the workers were responsible for the errors made. In psychology this phenomenon is called a bias, here are 3 important ones:

Willful Ignorance: the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. The practice can entail completely disregarding established facts, evidence and or reasonable opinions, if they fail to meet one’s expectations.

Confirmation Bias: The tendency for people to only seek out information that confirm to their 

preexisting view points and subsequently ignore information that goes against them.

But the most important, perhaps better know bias is:

Cognitive Dissonance:

A distressing mental state that people feel when they find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know or having opinions that don’t fit with other opinions that they hold. A key assumption is that people want their expectation to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium. Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.

Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit with their core belief.

The sane person constantly analyses the world of reality and then changes what’s inside his or her head to fit the facts. That’s an awful lot of trouble for most people. Besides, how many people want to constantly change their opinions to fit the facts?

It is a lot easier to change the facts to fit your opinions. Other people make up their minds and they find the facts to verify their opinions. Or even more commonly, they accept the opinion of the nearest expert and then don’t have to bother about the facts at all.

What does this say about managers who refuse to learn or even look at the facts which oppose their preconditioned (re biased) opinions? Well in my opinion (no pun intended), managers must be tested for biases before they are appointed, because such biases inevitably cause that decisions will only be made on incomplete information.... This risk could be of course detrimental to the company's bottom line and forms the reason for increased disorder which inevitably spins out of control because of the butterfly effect, rendering the organisation unmanageable, thus in trouble. Such behavior is also very dangerous because it jeopardizes employees, the environment, share- and stakeholders. So what to do? Not much I am afraid. To accept a bias is almost insurmountable for the many, hence our political governance systems which can't seem to solve anything. Self-reflections distinguishes humans beings from animals, so what is needed is to listen to other opinions, talk and converse, communicate and accept that all information is needed and valuable, just like Russell said. So, when at this moment I am writing this blog my own reflection tells me that I made a mistake by not inquiring first if the management I advised would be open to new information. Perhaps I will do that when I am asked for advice again. In retrospect it is truly amazing how often I have encountered biased behavior and am quite pleased that I am now starting to understand it myself. You see, one is never too old to learn.