3 ms·
Says who? You may not be able to (I sure can't) but that doesn't mean there aren't those who can and do understand this sort of thing. And there are those who w
by chris_wot 10y ago
Says who? You may not be able to (I sure can't) but that doesn't mean there aren't those who can and do understand this sort of thing. And there are those who will literally sit down for months and years till they do understand it. Or they might rip it out and replace it.
- tigershark 10y agoGuys, are you really saying that you think that you can certify every response of a NN for every input? Especially for NN as complicated as autopilot systems? Are you aware that if that was true then you would be the richest men in the world given that everyone would come to you to write a perfect algorithm to drive a car?
- ptero 10y agoCertifiable reliability is not the only goal. But even in safety critical tasks I have seen NNs and MDPs used to derive a good enough solution, then training turned off and the system certified (e.g. by running a large gold standard collection of test cases)
- jobigoud 10y agoThey will understand how it works in principle, not why it took this or that specific decision and they might not be able to exactly predict what it will do in an unforeseen situation. The decision itself might be taken using an amount of data completely overwhelming to human being analysis, processed at inhuman speed.
- tigershark 10y agoExactly, so having an open source autopilot systems would not have changed absolutely nothing, and the guy on the tesla watching Harry Potter would have been dead the same.