4 ms·

We really need to remember that humans are atrocious at driving on average, and doing better than them is a pretty low bar. Let's revisit that assertion when a

by zzalpha 11y ago

We really need to remember that humans are atrocious at driving on average, and doing better than them is a pretty low bar. Let's revisit that assertion when autonomous vehicles manage to even minimally cope with heavy rain or snow, neither of which are barriers for those "atrocious" human drivers.

mikeash 11y ago
You must live in a place with much better drivers than we have around where I live.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  A pithy answer that dodges the point. The reality is that, for all their flaws, humans vastly outperform autonomous vehicles in imperfect driving conditions. That's just reality, despite the HN tendency to pitch this technology as though it could replace all human drivers tomorrow.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Maybe your bad example made it difficult to understand what point you were trying to make. :P My point is simply that there are tasks where human drivers outperform computers, and there are tasks where computers outperform human drivers, so simply looking at some scenario where humans do better doesn't tell us anything. You have to look at the whole picture. And yes, currently humans are way better than computers in the general case. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that "computers can't handle situation X, which humans can" is a pointless thing to say by itself.
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      And yes, currently humans are way better than computers in the general case. I'm not disputing that. ROFL, no, with absolutely no qualification, you flat out said: We really need to remember that humans are atrocious at driving on average, and doing better than them is a pretty low bar. I guess what you're saying is that computers are so bad, they still can't get over that "pretty low bar"? If so, I suppose I agree, though I think you're dramatically underestimating just how capable human beings are. so simply looking at some scenario where humans do better doesn't tell us anything. Which is really strange, because that's exactly what everyone does when talking about autonomous vehicles. The discussion always surrounds current trials, where vehicles are allowed to operate in cherrypicked, near-ideal conditions: perfect, southern California climate, with minimal rain, zero snow, and perfect visibility. So I agree, let's stop looking at just some isolated scenario. Let's focus on the general case... where computers, unfortunately, currently fail, and will likely continue to do so for a very long time (dealing with highly variable conditions likely requires major infrastructure changes to actively support autonomous vehicles, and that ain't happening any time soon).
      - mikeash 11y ago
        > I guess what you're saying is that computers are so bad, they still can't get over that "pretty low bar"? Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. So you can skip over the parts where you talk about how other people, not me, praise the abilities of current autonomous vehicles, because I'm not doing that.
        zzalpha 11y ago
        Ah, very well then, I stand corrected!

by zzalpha 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

You must live in a place with much better drivers than we have around where I live.

zzalpha 11y ago
A pithy answer that dodges the point. The reality is that, for all their flaws, humans vastly outperform autonomous vehicles in imperfect driving conditions. That's just reality, despite the HN tendency to pitch this technology as though it could replace all human drivers tomorrow.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Maybe your bad example made it difficult to understand what point you were trying to make. :P My point is simply that there are tasks where human drivers outperform computers, and there are tasks where computers outperform human drivers, so simply looking at some scenario where humans do better doesn't tell us anything. You have to look at the whole picture. And yes, currently humans are way better than computers in the general case. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that "computers can't handle situation X, which humans can" is a pointless thing to say by itself.
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    And yes, currently humans are way better than computers in the general case. I'm not disputing that. ROFL, no, with absolutely no qualification, you flat out said: We really need to remember that humans are atrocious at driving on average, and doing better than them is a pretty low bar. I guess what you're saying is that computers are so bad, they still can't get over that "pretty low bar"? If so, I suppose I agree, though I think you're dramatically underestimating just how capable human beings are. so simply looking at some scenario where humans do better doesn't tell us anything. Which is really strange, because that's exactly what everyone does when talking about autonomous vehicles. The discussion always surrounds current trials, where vehicles are allowed to operate in cherrypicked, near-ideal conditions: perfect, southern California climate, with minimal rain, zero snow, and perfect visibility. So I agree, let's stop looking at just some isolated scenario. Let's focus on the general case... where computers, unfortunately, currently fail, and will likely continue to do so for a very long time (dealing with highly variable conditions likely requires major infrastructure changes to actively support autonomous vehicles, and that ain't happening any time soon).
    - mikeash 11y ago
      > I guess what you're saying is that computers are so bad, they still can't get over that "pretty low bar"? Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. So you can skip over the parts where you talk about how other people, not me, praise the abilities of current autonomous vehicles, because I'm not doing that.
      - zzalpha 11y ago
        Ah, very well then, I stand corrected!