Hi Gmoney$$,
In my view, theold-fashioned seismic interpreter will never be completely replaced by AItechniques. Humans must sit at the centre of the AI workflow to QC the results inorder that we can trust these results.
Human seismic interpreters are influenced by years of experiences and lessons learned whilst gaining this experienceover time. Yep, AI will do the same thing but what pops out the end of the AIworkflow must be thoroughly checked by experienced interpreters to build trust.
Yes, AI allowsreal-time training, but a human interpreter must be at the centre of theprocess for things such as fault, horizon and geobody interpretation. In my view no AI tool will fully replace the art of human seismic interpretation. Our experience as an interpreter and our understanding of how the results fit into our model is what makes the difference between a good or bad prospect assessment. Can AI differentiate between a good and bad result?
Used incombination, traditional interpretation together with AI has the power toimprove the quality, speed and understanding for the interpretation.
Without human confidencein the AI results though, the technology will struggle to get a foot hold, but timewill tell.
So, who do we blame fora dry hole? The human QC’ing the AI results or an AI glitch? Someone must beaccountable, not something made up of zeros and ones……….
Just my view.
OldGeo
(20min delay)