6 ms·

This is not a fair comparison: there're a lot more human driver than autonomous cars.

by nialv7 10y ago

sodawater 10y ago
Parent: "It's not fair to compare two things unless the sample sizes are exactly the same."
agumonkey 10y ago
One thing I just thought about, Musk said miles trains a better AI. Supposing this yields true valuable results. All SDV may become near perfect drivers. Humans will keep being spread along the spectrum of dangerous to safe driver. ps: thanks for reminding me that statistics are hard to get right.
- chillingeffect 10y ago
  Anyone using ML knows there are points of diminishing returns. Otherwise I would be writing this from atop a pile of money.
mertd 10y ago
I think the point here is not that the self driving software is already beter than humans but rather that the upside of cars driving themselves is so big that it is worth pursuing until we get it right.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  You can pursue that goal without simultaneously pursuing hype.
  - Mtinie 10y ago
    I agree completely with that statement. My fear is that irrational reporting and FUD on behalf of those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo as long as possible will set back automation by a significant number of years. Some hype is useful, to be sure, but it is a delicate balance with avoiding a situation where the pace of innovation has been oversold.
  - invisible 10y ago
    What hype was even mentioned in the parent? I just don't get how you saw hype by the numbers being brought up.
invisible 10y ago
Seeing as nobody was seriously injured and that it wasn't the fault of the autonomous vehicle (reported by other news outlets) I think it's fair to bring it up. 0 deaths in the past six months vs 9 in the past 10 hours. That isn't even all vehicle deaths by humans in that timeframe either.
- tylerhou 10y ago
  >0 deaths in the past six months vs 9 in the past 10 hours. But this is misleading because there are far more non-self-driving cars than self-driving cars.
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    I agree, but it's more misleading to have headlines about a self-driving car that crashed without mentioning it's not the self-driving car's fault (and without mentioning nobody was even injured).
    - danso 10y ago
      It's too early to know who is to blame, or even if blame can be assigned so cleanly. Meanwhile, we have Uber's own reports that say that human drivers have to physically intervene during autonomous operation at a rate of one intervention per mile http://www.recode.net/2017/3/16/14938116/uber-travis-kalanick-self-driving-internal-metrics-slow-progress http://www.recode.net/2017/3/16/14938116/uber-travis-kalanic...
      - Fricken 10y ago
        Uber is pretty middle of the pack as far as the state of their progress developing this technology is concerned. One intervention per mile on average isn't any kind of scathing indictment of Uber's autonomous driving program. The sensationalism of Uber's leaked intervention report mostly just illustrates a disconnect between public perception about where the technology is at, and where it's really at. There are 23 other companies with permits to test autonomous vehicles in CA and they're all doing pretty much the same thing. Waymo is way out in front, Cruise/GM is doing well, but there are maybe a half dozen large, deeply invested players (including Tesla) not nearly as advanced as Uber.

This is not a fair comparison: there're a lot more human driver than autonomous cars.

by nialv7 10y ago

This is not a fair comparison: there're a lot more human driver than autonomous cars.

sodawater 10y ago

Parent: "It's not fair to compare two things unless the sample sizes are exactly the same."

agumonkey 10y ago

One thing I just thought about, Musk said miles trains a better AI. Supposing this yields true valuable results. All SDV may become near perfect drivers. Humans will keep being spread along the spectrum of dangerous to safe driver. ps: thanks for reminding me that statistics are hard to get right.

chillingeffect 10y ago
Anyone using ML knows there are points of diminishing returns. Otherwise I would be writing this from atop a pile of money.

mertd 10y ago

I think the point here is not that the self driving software is already beter than humans but rather that the upside of cars driving themselves is so big that it is worth pursuing until we get it right.

RodericDay 10y ago
You can pursue that goal without simultaneously pursuing hype.
- Mtinie 10y ago
  I agree completely with that statement. My fear is that irrational reporting and FUD on behalf of those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo as long as possible will set back automation by a significant number of years. Some hype is useful, to be sure, but it is a delicate balance with avoiding a situation where the pace of innovation has been oversold.
- invisible 10y ago
  What hype was even mentioned in the parent? I just don't get how you saw hype by the numbers being brought up.

invisible 10y ago

Seeing as nobody was seriously injured and that it wasn't the fault of the autonomous vehicle (reported by other news outlets) I think it's fair to bring it up. 0 deaths in the past six months vs 9 in the past 10 hours. That isn't even all vehicle deaths by humans in that timeframe either.

tylerhou 10y ago
>0 deaths in the past six months vs 9 in the past 10 hours. But this is misleading because there are far more non-self-driving cars than self-driving cars.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  I agree, but it's more misleading to have headlines about a self-driving car that crashed without mentioning it's not the self-driving car's fault (and without mentioning nobody was even injured).
  - danso 10y ago
    It's too early to know who is to blame, or even if blame can be assigned so cleanly. Meanwhile, we have Uber's own reports that say that human drivers have to physically intervene during autonomous operation at a rate of one intervention per mile http://www.recode.net/2017/3/16/14938116/uber-travis-kalanick-self-driving-internal-metrics-slow-progress http://www.recode.net/2017/3/16/14938116/uber-travis-kalanic...
    - Fricken 10y ago
      Uber is pretty middle of the pack as far as the state of their progress developing this technology is concerned. One intervention per mile on average isn't any kind of scathing indictment of Uber's autonomous driving program. The sensationalism of Uber's leaked intervention report mostly just illustrates a disconnect between public perception about where the technology is at, and where it's really at. There are 23 other companies with permits to test autonomous vehicles in CA and they're all doing pretty much the same thing. Waymo is way out in front, Cruise/GM is doing well, but there are maybe a half dozen large, deeply invested players (including Tesla) not nearly as advanced as Uber.