4 ms·

Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that. My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat

Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that. My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.

rgbrenner 9y ago
But how else do you imagine scenarios like these are tested? Normally there aren't a lot of people willing to jump randomly out in front of cars to test their reaction.
- spaceribs 9y ago
  I really don't know. Even with all the hours of recorded road time by Google/Uber used as a testbed for proper driving conditions, most machine learning systems still suffer from figuring out ways of cheating[1], and in those cases it could be fatal. [1] "The program even learns how to take advantage of bugs and glitches, like timing jumps so that Mario begins falling again at the exact time that he makes contact with a Goomba. Mario's invincible when he's falling, so the touch kills the Goomba, not Mario, and it gives him a further jump boost." http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    That's a problem for the test design. Maybe we can develop an approach that uses more randomness to test these systems. But I dont see how you can avoid having a simulation. These events are just too rare to wait until they occur in real life.
  - Erlangolem 9y ago
    You know, medical research would be so much faster and easier and cheaper if we could just test new drugs and devices and procedures on humans. We don’t. We shouldn’t. Half of all humans who have ever lived, died from mosquito-borne illnes, about 5,000,000,000 human lives. People who argue that the relatively paltry number of people killed by automobiles justifies a little “sacrifice” to prevent it in the future, never seem to apply that callousness to other arenas. Certainly those people are not lining up to volunteer as test subjects. We don’t get to make that choice for others. If you want to try give yourself Yellow Fever(1) to help prevent its spread, you go for it. If you want to infect other people for the same reason (1), go to hell. The same applies to cars. If you’re volunteering to push a bike on a dark test track for Uber, you go be you. If you want to make the state of Arizona’s citizens unconsenting guinea pigs for the same reason, go to hell. This isn’t a new concept, it’s just a new tech, the moral dimension hasn’t changed. The fact that ethical R&D is harder than unethical R&D isn’t news, and isn’t an excuse. (1) https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3_5.html https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3...
    - spaceribs 9y ago
      I think comparing this to human drug trials is an appeal to emotion. I also think you're saying that bad tests are better than no tests, which I don't agree with. These would be bad tests because they wouldn't constitute the complicated reality of driving, they inherently only summarize the output of such a complex system.
      - Erlangolem 9y ago
        If you think it’s an appeal to emotion, make a real argument in that direction, don’t bluntly state the contents of your head and move on. As it stands, you just appear morally bankrupt. I’m strongly inclined to believe that’s the case, and your inability to make a cogent argument makes me wonder about what else you’re lacking. By the way, you may be misunderstanding “appeal to emotion” as “having emotions” and that’s worrying. I can only hope your attitude is literally pathological, and not just your personality. Either way, please never work near people, or I’m a critical system effecting people.
        spaceribs 9y ago
        It would be morally bankrupt to rely entirely on a quantitative test for something that is qualitative, I don't know how much clearer with the previous comment I can get?
        Erlangolem 9y ago
        You’re being obtuse. It’s morally bankrupt to experiment on humans without their informed consent. At least, I hope you’re being obtuse, and not just utterly broken.
        arcticfox 9y ago
        You're missing the fact that any time someone takes a drug, they're essentially testing it against their unique body chemistry. The same as self-driving cars in unique situations. The only difference is the car feedback loop is way better instrumented, and doesn't have to rely on mass statistics to inform recalls.
  - megablast 9y ago
    It is not ML deciding where to turn, when to slow down.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  I imagine just rolling some objects across the road or some self-riding bicycles should be enough.
simion314 9y ago
But what if the self driving cars fail the simulation? The simulation would be the first thing the car needs to pass, if car passes the simulated, then special tests, then you get approved to test on public roads with a security driver, I have no idea when is the time to test without a driver.

rgbrenner 9y ago

But how else do you imagine scenarios like these are tested? Normally there aren't a lot of people willing to jump randomly out in front of cars to test their reaction.

spaceribs 9y ago
I really don't know. Even with all the hours of recorded road time by Google/Uber used as a testbed for proper driving conditions, most machine learning systems still suffer from figuring out ways of cheating[1], and in those cases it could be fatal. [1] "The program even learns how to take advantage of bugs and glitches, like timing jumps so that Mario begins falling again at the exact time that he makes contact with a Goomba. Mario's invincible when he's falling, so the touch kills the Goomba, not Mario, and it gives him a further jump boost." http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  That's a problem for the test design. Maybe we can develop an approach that uses more randomness to test these systems. But I dont see how you can avoid having a simulation. These events are just too rare to wait until they occur in real life.
- Erlangolem 9y ago
  You know, medical research would be so much faster and easier and cheaper if we could just test new drugs and devices and procedures on humans. We don’t. We shouldn’t. Half of all humans who have ever lived, died from mosquito-borne illnes, about 5,000,000,000 human lives. People who argue that the relatively paltry number of people killed by automobiles justifies a little “sacrifice” to prevent it in the future, never seem to apply that callousness to other arenas. Certainly those people are not lining up to volunteer as test subjects. We don’t get to make that choice for others. If you want to try give yourself Yellow Fever(1) to help prevent its spread, you go for it. If you want to infect other people for the same reason (1), go to hell. The same applies to cars. If you’re volunteering to push a bike on a dark test track for Uber, you go be you. If you want to make the state of Arizona’s citizens unconsenting guinea pigs for the same reason, go to hell. This isn’t a new concept, it’s just a new tech, the moral dimension hasn’t changed. The fact that ethical R&D is harder than unethical R&D isn’t news, and isn’t an excuse. (1) https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3_5.html https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3...
  - spaceribs 9y ago
    I think comparing this to human drug trials is an appeal to emotion. I also think you're saying that bad tests are better than no tests, which I don't agree with. These would be bad tests because they wouldn't constitute the complicated reality of driving, they inherently only summarize the output of such a complex system.
    - Erlangolem 9y ago
      If you think it’s an appeal to emotion, make a real argument in that direction, don’t bluntly state the contents of your head and move on. As it stands, you just appear morally bankrupt. I’m strongly inclined to believe that’s the case, and your inability to make a cogent argument makes me wonder about what else you’re lacking. By the way, you may be misunderstanding “appeal to emotion” as “having emotions” and that’s worrying. I can only hope your attitude is literally pathological, and not just your personality. Either way, please never work near people, or I’m a critical system effecting people.
      - spaceribs 9y ago
        It would be morally bankrupt to rely entirely on a quantitative test for something that is qualitative, I don't know how much clearer with the previous comment I can get?
        Erlangolem 9y ago
        You’re being obtuse. It’s morally bankrupt to experiment on humans without their informed consent. At least, I hope you’re being obtuse, and not just utterly broken.
        arcticfox 9y ago
        You're missing the fact that any time someone takes a drug, they're essentially testing it against their unique body chemistry. The same as self-driving cars in unique situations. The only difference is the car feedback loop is way better instrumented, and doesn't have to rely on mass statistics to inform recalls.
- megablast 9y ago
  It is not ML deciding where to turn, when to slow down.
jimmaswell 9y ago
I imagine just rolling some objects across the road or some self-riding bicycles should be enough.

simion314 9y ago

But what if the self driving cars fail the simulation? The simulation would be the first thing the car needs to pass, if car passes the simulated, then special tests, then you get approved to test on public roads with a security driver, I have no idea when is the time to test without a driver.