4 ms·

This is why we need government investigators to look at crash/accident data (after the fact) and we need to ensure that the data hasn't been tampered with by an

by mtgx 9y ago

This is why we need government investigators to look at crash/accident data (after the fact) and we need to ensure that the data hasn't been tampered with by anyone, including the car makers. We can't just rely on the company's words in a crash. Of course the company has all the incentive to lie or at least be as misleading as possible or try to minimize its blame as much as possible, to avoid liability or bad press. That should surprise absolutely no one. That's why we need to make sure that the company's bias is taken out of the equation altogether.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
This is Silicon Valley. "move fast and break things"
- Ygg2 9y ago
  Move fast and end lives.
- neolefty 9y ago
  Common in early car and aircraft cultures as well. Always a tension between innovation and safety. I don't mean that as a cop-out. Rather that there's no single "right answer". We are choosing something on a spectrum of risk vs reward. Personally, although I have no direct experience, it's starting to look like Tesla is being too risky. Yes, they're safer than human-only drivers, but the mistakes they're making are too algorithmic. They're not enough safer to call Autopilot a success. Contrast that with Waymo, who are paranoid-ly safe. They seem to be taking the long view that building trust (and not taking any chances to lose that trust) is as important as technical achievements. Edit: Or, at some other extreme of poor citizenship, Uber, who seem to have gone off the deep end of "Keep up appearances of having a self-driving research program even though it's a disaster internally."
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    I firmly believe that a technology deployed in a potentially life-threatening context like a car or plane or pacemaker deserves a much more conservative development approach. "Move fast and break things" isn't appropriate when human lives are at stake. Waymo is applying the appropriate conservatism; Tesla and Uber are playing fast and loose by comparison.
    - snthd 9y ago
      The dilemma is that slow development costs lives as well :-/
      - chaboud 9y ago
        Unfortunately, that sentiment, wielded as a shield by the ambitious, papers a veneer of virtue over the callous disregard of cutting corners with other people's lives. The reality is that careful development is expensive. If Uber and Tesla were racing to save lives, they'd open up their work to the public. They're racing to make the most money possible in the end. Part of that equation is cost. Another is maximizing the utility of available resources. They only need to be safe enough to not get shut down or lose substantial market share (ongoing capital).
        saalweachter 9y ago
        I think the exact logical flaw is that saying "slowing down development for testing costs lives" assumes the solution will be validated as correct. Waiting a year to deploy the correct solution for want of testing costs the lives that solution could have saved in that year, yes, but pushing one correct and four incorrect solutions immediately into production - when the incorrect solutions each cost twice as many lives as could have otherwise been saved - and re-evaluating after a year kills far more people than are saved.
  - watsocd 9y ago
    32,000 people die every year in car accidents in the US alone. If automation reduces that by only half, that's 80,000 lives saved. The real problem in the press is that these crashes are like plane crashes; rare but catastrophic.
- snthd 9y ago
  Superfund Valley

by mtgx 9y ago

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

This is Silicon Valley. "move fast and break things"

Ygg2 9y ago
Move fast and end lives.
neolefty 9y ago
Common in early car and aircraft cultures as well. Always a tension between innovation and safety. I don't mean that as a cop-out. Rather that there's no single "right answer". We are choosing something on a spectrum of risk vs reward. Personally, although I have no direct experience, it's starting to look like Tesla is being too risky. Yes, they're safer than human-only drivers, but the mistakes they're making are too algorithmic. They're not enough safer to call Autopilot a success. Contrast that with Waymo, who are paranoid-ly safe. They seem to be taking the long view that building trust (and not taking any chances to lose that trust) is as important as technical achievements. Edit: Or, at some other extreme of poor citizenship, Uber, who seem to have gone off the deep end of "Keep up appearances of having a self-driving research program even though it's a disaster internally."
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  I firmly believe that a technology deployed in a potentially life-threatening context like a car or plane or pacemaker deserves a much more conservative development approach. "Move fast and break things" isn't appropriate when human lives are at stake. Waymo is applying the appropriate conservatism; Tesla and Uber are playing fast and loose by comparison.
  - snthd 9y ago
    The dilemma is that slow development costs lives as well :-/
    - chaboud 9y ago
      Unfortunately, that sentiment, wielded as a shield by the ambitious, papers a veneer of virtue over the callous disregard of cutting corners with other people's lives. The reality is that careful development is expensive. If Uber and Tesla were racing to save lives, they'd open up their work to the public. They're racing to make the most money possible in the end. Part of that equation is cost. Another is maximizing the utility of available resources. They only need to be safe enough to not get shut down or lose substantial market share (ongoing capital).
      - saalweachter 9y ago
        I think the exact logical flaw is that saying "slowing down development for testing costs lives" assumes the solution will be validated as correct. Waiting a year to deploy the correct solution for want of testing costs the lives that solution could have saved in that year, yes, but pushing one correct and four incorrect solutions immediately into production - when the incorrect solutions each cost twice as many lives as could have otherwise been saved - and re-evaluating after a year kills far more people than are saved.
- watsocd 9y ago
  32,000 people die every year in car accidents in the US alone. If automation reduces that by only half, that's 80,000 lives saved. The real problem in the press is that these crashes are like plane crashes; rare but catastrophic.
snthd 9y ago
Superfund Valley