3 ms·

Seriously, fuck that guy. > Drive.AI founder Andrew Ng, a former Baidu executive and one of the industry’s most prominent boosters, argues the problem is less

Seriously, fuck that guy. > Drive.AI founder Andrew Ng, a former Baidu executive and one of the industry’s most prominent boosters, argues the problem is less about building a perfect driving system than training bystanders to anticipate self-driving behavior. In other words, we can make roads safe for the cars instead of the other way around. I'm not going to give up on crosswalks just so you can make money on your shmancy new cars.

dang 8y ago
Please don't post like this to HN. It degrades discussion and encourages worse. Downward-spiraling is the internet default, so effort is needed to avoid it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- phyzome 8y ago
  Can you tell me more about downward-spiraling, and how this relates to the guidelines? The guy in the article seems to be implying that pedestrians don't have the right to be in the road. I think it's pretty OK to be dismissive of that.
  - comesee 8y ago
    I agree with you but it was probably your language. HN isn't a free speech zone.
  - pacala 8y ago
    Skipping the first sentence would be a good step forward.
  - dang 8y ago
    "Seriously fuck that guy" is low-grade internet sludge. We don't need that here. If you post it, others will post more, and we will get all sludgey. That's point #1. Point #2 is more subtle and more important. You picked an uncharitable interpretation in order to get snippy at it. That's a self-referential activity, not the thoughtful engagement we're looking for. This is why the site guidelines say: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." That applies to articles and quotes as much as to fellow commenters. If people just rail against weak versions of what others say, the only ones interested in reading it will be others in the same mood. Everyone else will get bored and leave, which in the long (or maybe not so long) run amounts to the death of this community. That's a downward spiral we really don't want, so please make an effort not to do that. In short, please follow the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - lostsock 8y ago
      Constantly impressed by the time you spend explaining your moderation suggestions dang, thank you for all the work you put in to make this place what it is :)
    - phyzome 8y ago
      OK, thanks -- I'll be more careful with language, and next time will back up my point better. (I don't think I was picking an uncharitable interpretation, and elsewhere in this thread I clarify that.)
  - tim333 8y ago
    Ng didn't say anything about giving up on crosswalks. He mentioned "bouncing on a pogo stick in the middle of a highway" could be a bad idea but I guess that's true with human drivers too.
    - phyzome 8y ago
      And yet, the Uber car hit someone crossing the road, walking a bicycle, because it couldn't slot her into either "pedestrian" or "bicycle". What about someone using a walker, bent over and shuffling? It's not going to recognize that person either. The only way to make the "road safe for cars" (of that sort) is to remove all the huge variety of actual road-users from the road.

dang 8y ago

Please don't post like this to HN. It degrades discussion and encourages worse. Downward-spiraling is the internet default, so effort is needed to avoid it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

phyzome 8y ago
Can you tell me more about downward-spiraling, and how this relates to the guidelines? The guy in the article seems to be implying that pedestrians don't have the right to be in the road. I think it's pretty OK to be dismissive of that.
- comesee 8y ago
  I agree with you but it was probably your language. HN isn't a free speech zone.
- pacala 8y ago
  Skipping the first sentence would be a good step forward.
- dang 8y ago
  "Seriously fuck that guy" is low-grade internet sludge. We don't need that here. If you post it, others will post more, and we will get all sludgey. That's point #1. Point #2 is more subtle and more important. You picked an uncharitable interpretation in order to get snippy at it. That's a self-referential activity, not the thoughtful engagement we're looking for. This is why the site guidelines say: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." That applies to articles and quotes as much as to fellow commenters. If people just rail against weak versions of what others say, the only ones interested in reading it will be others in the same mood. Everyone else will get bored and leave, which in the long (or maybe not so long) run amounts to the death of this community. That's a downward spiral we really don't want, so please make an effort not to do that. In short, please follow the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lostsock 8y ago
    Constantly impressed by the time you spend explaining your moderation suggestions dang, thank you for all the work you put in to make this place what it is :)
  - phyzome 8y ago
    OK, thanks -- I'll be more careful with language, and next time will back up my point better. (I don't think I was picking an uncharitable interpretation, and elsewhere in this thread I clarify that.)
- tim333 8y ago
  Ng didn't say anything about giving up on crosswalks. He mentioned "bouncing on a pogo stick in the middle of a highway" could be a bad idea but I guess that's true with human drivers too.
  - phyzome 8y ago
    And yet, the Uber car hit someone crossing the road, walking a bicycle, because it couldn't slot her into either "pedestrian" or "bicycle". What about someone using a walker, bent over and shuffling? It's not going to recognize that person either. The only way to make the "road safe for cars" (of that sort) is to remove all the huge variety of actual road-users from the road.