3 ms·

> ... humans don't need LIDAR to drive, why should computers? That being the case, wouldn't we be limiting self-driving technology to the same traffic-related

> ... humans don't need LIDAR to drive, why should computers? That being the case, wouldn't we be limiting self-driving technology to the same traffic-related death rates as humans? Maybe 10, 20% better, but still fundamentally close. For self-driving cars to be truly successful, the death rates will need to be an order of magnitude better. An incremental improvement won't convince governments and the public at large to trust their lives to an algorithm running inside a black box. To be an order of magnitude better, you'll likely need to go well beyond simply processing pixels, including LIDAR and other sensors.

closeparen 10y ago
>Maybe 10, 20% better, but still fundamentally close. You are asserting that human drivers are essentially perfect, because in 80-90% of their crashes, the information necessary to avoid the collision just isn't available visually. That seems like an incredibly optimistic view of human drivers. Collisions happen because a driver does not look at, see, understand, or act appropriately on available visual signals. Or they are going too fast / following too closely for their actions to be effective.
- mikeash 10y ago
  A huge number of traffic deaths are due to alcohol. An autonomous system that's as safe as a sober human would improve safety by a factor of 2 or 3. Many of the other deaths are due to distraction, inattention, or slow reaction times. Get rid of those and you can probably see an order of magnitude improvement with something that is nominally "no better than a human driver."
  - aetherson 10y ago
    Would you (while sober) get into a car driven by an autonomous system that was demonstrably more likely to get into a crash than the average sober, awake, healthy driver, but less likely to get into a crash than the average driver? Honest question. I don't think I would.
    - inimino 10y ago
      Interesting question. As long as you still have the manual option, it doesn't really matter. You can just get in and drive if you want to. As the option becomes more common, obviously impaired driving becomes less common.
      - aetherson 10y ago
        It matters if, for example, the car is an Uber and you aren't allowed to drive it.
        Belenus 10y ago
        Will Uber still stand when self-driving cars become common?
    - Belenus 10y ago
      But you can't predict what would happen. Driving even healthy and sober, something could happen. Assuming you're in a more developed version of the self-driving cars, machine-learning has most likely come a long way since the beginning. The car/network of cars would have learned by now that the command: "Stay on the right side of the road." Doesn't mean to stay on the right side of the road but it's okay to hit a few cars or pedestrians." They would have learned, or have programmed in them, that hitting cars or people is not good. Machines don't have a moral sense, and hoping that they are not completely sentient, this means that they don't have opinions, meaning that if you don't like this guy, you can be a little rude to him. And my last point is that the network of cars, all communicating at once, would learn how to be safest. Done.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Good question. It would depend on the exact numbers, I'd say. I do sometimes ride in (or drive) non-autonomous cars more dangerous than the best drivers, after all. I don't know how relevant it will be, though. I suspect that the fact that computers are always attentive, can react instantly, and follow the rules consistently will make them much safer very quickly. But we shall see!

closeparen 10y ago

>Maybe 10, 20% better, but still fundamentally close. You are asserting that human drivers are essentially perfect, because in 80-90% of their crashes, the information necessary to avoid the collision just isn't available visually. That seems like an incredibly optimistic view of human drivers. Collisions happen because a driver does not look at, see, understand, or act appropriately on available visual signals. Or they are going too fast / following too closely for their actions to be effective.

mikeash 10y ago
A huge number of traffic deaths are due to alcohol. An autonomous system that's as safe as a sober human would improve safety by a factor of 2 or 3. Many of the other deaths are due to distraction, inattention, or slow reaction times. Get rid of those and you can probably see an order of magnitude improvement with something that is nominally "no better than a human driver."
- aetherson 10y ago
  Would you (while sober) get into a car driven by an autonomous system that was demonstrably more likely to get into a crash than the average sober, awake, healthy driver, but less likely to get into a crash than the average driver? Honest question. I don't think I would.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Interesting question. As long as you still have the manual option, it doesn't really matter. You can just get in and drive if you want to. As the option becomes more common, obviously impaired driving becomes less common.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      It matters if, for example, the car is an Uber and you aren't allowed to drive it.
      - Belenus 10y ago
        Will Uber still stand when self-driving cars become common?
  - Belenus 10y ago
    But you can't predict what would happen. Driving even healthy and sober, something could happen. Assuming you're in a more developed version of the self-driving cars, machine-learning has most likely come a long way since the beginning. The car/network of cars would have learned by now that the command: "Stay on the right side of the road." Doesn't mean to stay on the right side of the road but it's okay to hit a few cars or pedestrians." They would have learned, or have programmed in them, that hitting cars or people is not good. Machines don't have a moral sense, and hoping that they are not completely sentient, this means that they don't have opinions, meaning that if you don't like this guy, you can be a little rude to him. And my last point is that the network of cars, all communicating at once, would learn how to be safest. Done.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Good question. It would depend on the exact numbers, I'd say. I do sometimes ride in (or drive) non-autonomous cars more dangerous than the best drivers, after all. I don't know how relevant it will be, though. I suspect that the fact that computers are always attentive, can react instantly, and follow the rules consistently will make them much safer very quickly. But we shall see!