3 ms·

His point was that machines should be held at much higher standards than humans. This is a point I'e been making since the beginning myself. If you want self-d

by mtgx 9y ago

His point was that machines should be held at much higher standards than humans. This is a point I'e been making since the beginning myself. If you want self-driving cars to be accepted, they need to be at least 10x better than the best human drivers. Comments such as "self-driving cars only need to be 50% better than humans on average" are absolute nonsense. Humans will never go for that.

fastball 9y ago
I don't think the risk of death from walking up the stairs is very high... so I'm assuming elevators are about equivalent, because people have definitely died in elevators.
- eftychis 9y ago
  Actually, death by elevator is extremely unlikely. Comparatively staircases are death traps. Source by googling a bit (you can find many more): http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/deadly-statistics/ http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/dead... (1 in 10,440,000). That said I wouldn't trust an elevator in China or what you would consider underdeveloped countries (incorrectly called 3rd world) (I have heard various stories of cutting corners and lack of inspection). Self-driving cars don't need to be 10x better, but they are going to be. Humans introduce a delay of 1sec in best cases which is in the same order of magnitude to a car going 60 to 0. Again as mentioned above by others, self-driving cars don't experience fatigue, attention fatigue, emotions, focal vision degradation due to light conditions etc. Uber tried to cut corners from what is apparent [to me and quite a few others I guess]. I am really trying hard to imagine a scenario where the LiDAR would have missed the pedestrian. From my knowledge there are no stealth-material-dressed pedestrians out there, no matter how cool that idea would be for a movie. Try to check youtube about videos of the Uber car's behaviour in San Francisco and you would see issues a year ago. Driving conditions in Phoenix are much better (personal experience and I have witnessed self-driving cars in both cities). Uber needs to drastically improve their quality assurance and scenarios. (I am not trying to reach any conclusions and pass judgment without having all the evidence at hand. Even though my comments are extremely critical.) I think it is a good idea we Waymo, Uber, etc propose a standard for adoption with different levels and an independent committee argues and improves on it and we reach a common list of milestones. I think otherwise state governments are making decisions on a whim. Of course that path is a public relation nightmare as they will have to accept existing issues. Nobody wants to write down there is a 0.001% a pedestrian will die in this scenario, even if with a human driver behind the wheel the chance would be higher; for instance 1 or 10% or even 50%.
- johngalt 9y ago
  This comment is precisely the point. You assume the risks are equivalent but they aren't even close. Roughly 50x as many people die on stairs vs elevators. Yet more people are afraid of elevators. Even subtly in your comment, notice how you minimize the risks of stairs and underscore the risks of elevators. Similar thing with ladders. No one would ever get in an elevator if it had the same risk profile as a ladder. So why do we use ladders? Because there is a high degree of control. Humans are more comfortable with risk so long as there is a control/participation element.
icc97 9y ago
I don't see why they need to be 10x better. If every car could match the best that humans can do 24x7 that should prevent almost all casualties. I imagine the best possible driver to be a world-class rally driver who: 1. never drinks 2. never speeds 3. never drives whilst tired 4. drives without emotion/adrenaline (test pilots talk about the importance of having no adrenaline as the best way to perform) 5. Always keeps a 3-4s distance from the car in front But I believe that when self-driving cars can match humans which is actually the hard part, then they can become 10x better because similar to airline pilots they can be trained on extreme events and so are able to respond much faster in situations that even the best unprepared human could do.
- pythonaut_16 9y ago
  That's one of the most important points that most of the statistics miss. Autonomous vehicles don't need to beat average human statistics. They need to beat statistics based on the best human drivers.
kp1234321 9y ago
Why 10x better? Hypothetically, if you could replace every manually operated car today with a self-driving car and this reduced collisions by .01%, wouldn't you want to do it?

by mtgx 9y ago

fastball 9y ago

I don't think the risk of death from walking up the stairs is very high... so I'm assuming elevators are about equivalent, because people have definitely died in elevators.

eftychis 9y ago
Actually, death by elevator is extremely unlikely. Comparatively staircases are death traps. Source by googling a bit (you can find many more): http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/deadly-statistics/ http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/dead... (1 in 10,440,000). That said I wouldn't trust an elevator in China or what you would consider underdeveloped countries (incorrectly called 3rd world) (I have heard various stories of cutting corners and lack of inspection). Self-driving cars don't need to be 10x better, but they are going to be. Humans introduce a delay of 1sec in best cases which is in the same order of magnitude to a car going 60 to 0. Again as mentioned above by others, self-driving cars don't experience fatigue, attention fatigue, emotions, focal vision degradation due to light conditions etc. Uber tried to cut corners from what is apparent [to me and quite a few others I guess]. I am really trying hard to imagine a scenario where the LiDAR would have missed the pedestrian. From my knowledge there are no stealth-material-dressed pedestrians out there, no matter how cool that idea would be for a movie. Try to check youtube about videos of the Uber car's behaviour in San Francisco and you would see issues a year ago. Driving conditions in Phoenix are much better (personal experience and I have witnessed self-driving cars in both cities). Uber needs to drastically improve their quality assurance and scenarios. (I am not trying to reach any conclusions and pass judgment without having all the evidence at hand. Even though my comments are extremely critical.) I think it is a good idea we Waymo, Uber, etc propose a standard for adoption with different levels and an independent committee argues and improves on it and we reach a common list of milestones. I think otherwise state governments are making decisions on a whim. Of course that path is a public relation nightmare as they will have to accept existing issues. Nobody wants to write down there is a 0.001% a pedestrian will die in this scenario, even if with a human driver behind the wheel the chance would be higher; for instance 1 or 10% or even 50%.
johngalt 9y ago
This comment is precisely the point. You assume the risks are equivalent but they aren't even close. Roughly 50x as many people die on stairs vs elevators. Yet more people are afraid of elevators. Even subtly in your comment, notice how you minimize the risks of stairs and underscore the risks of elevators. Similar thing with ladders. No one would ever get in an elevator if it had the same risk profile as a ladder. So why do we use ladders? Because there is a high degree of control. Humans are more comfortable with risk so long as there is a control/participation element.

icc97 9y ago

I don't see why they need to be 10x better. If every car could match the best that humans can do 24x7 that should prevent almost all casualties. I imagine the best possible driver to be a world-class rally driver who: 1. never drinks 2. never speeds 3. never drives whilst tired 4. drives without emotion/adrenaline (test pilots talk about the importance of having no adrenaline as the best way to perform) 5. Always keeps a 3-4s distance from the car in front But I believe that when self-driving cars can match humans which is actually the hard part, then they can become 10x better because similar to airline pilots they can be trained on extreme events and so are able to respond much faster in situations that even the best unprepared human could do.

pythonaut_16 9y ago
That's one of the most important points that most of the statistics miss. Autonomous vehicles don't need to beat average human statistics. They need to beat statistics based on the best human drivers.

kp1234321 9y ago

Why 10x better? Hypothetically, if you could replace every manually operated car today with a self-driving car and this reduced collisions by .01%, wouldn't you want to do it?