4 ms·

That was 7 years ago. 7 years before that video ipods just came out, blogging became a thing, and the best phone out was a razor. That was a whole technological

That was 7 years ago. 7 years before that video ipods just came out, blogging became a thing, and the best phone out was a razor. That was a whole technological epoc ago.

gsich 8y ago
And yet, 7 years after there are still similar problems with self-driving cars. Don't get too hang up on dates.
- gwern 8y ago
  There are, for the self-driving car program in question which developed over that 7 years of progres? Can you name a similar incident in the past year of a Waymo car boxing in another car on a highway and sending people to the hospital?
  - gsich 8y ago
    Uber sent a woman to the grave. Don't know if that counts for you.
    - gwern 8y ago
      No, it doesn't, because their program sucked from the start, worse than most, and even if they were the best self-driving car program, Uber's has only been around for a few years and so is not a valid counterexample to the claim '7 years won't make a difference'. It sure does seem to've for Waymo.
      - gsich 8y ago
        The same person (Levandowski) worked at Uber. So all his knowledge went to Uber too, obviously. They didn't start at point zero.
        eiieirurjdndjd 8y ago
        Ah yeah just so you know there is a lot more to building a self driving car system than the general knowledge held in the head of the lead engineer. It is unlikely that he would have known even a tenth of the systems involved in the waymo program at a level of detail required to quickly replicate them.
        r00fus 8y ago
        All I get from this is that Levandowski and his actions are dangerous for humans.
        gwern 8y ago
        You mean the person who was fired almost as soon as he got there and which the trial showed had near-zero contribution?
  - my_first_acct 8y ago
    It took 7 years for this particular incident to come to light. Until I learned about it, I thought that Google/Waymo was pretty good about disclosures, but now I have to wonder what present-day incidents we will only be finding out about 7 years from now.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  And several people died in human-caused wrecks while you were typing that sentence. Nobody seems too hung up on that. Not scary enough, I guess, and you can't blame one or two large monolithic corporations for it. Self-driving cars are one of those instances where painstaking adherence to the precautionary principle is going to get a lot of people killed due to poor risk modeling. This article is a great example, where the reporter has engaged in elaborate rhetorical gymnastics to paint an incident arising from a human driver's poor judgement as the fault of a "rogue engineer."
  - onion2k 8y ago
    Nobody seems too hung up on that. I don't think that's true. A lot of people campaign for better road safety.
  - dogecoinbase 8y ago
    There's no evidence thus far that self-driving cars will improve road safety. None whatsoever. For the interested, here is an excellent overview of the quality of evidence necessary to prove same: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1478/RAND_RR1478.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Agreed, that looks like an interesting report and I'll definitely spend some time with it. However, the whole idea behind the report is that the reason we don't have the necessary evidence to draw a conclusion is that the cars simply haven't been on the road long enough yet. It accomplishes nothing to pound your desk and proclaim loftily that "There's no evidence whatsoever." I don't see why AVs can't outperform human drivers, and further, I don't see why they need to be built with NASA-level software and hardware quality to meet that goal, as many suggest. That will only increase costs and delay benefits. "Move fast and break things" is a perfectly valid strategy if it results in fatality numbers that spike temporarily and then plunge rapidly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.
  - davidgould 8y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
I believe the point is the technology is irrelevant. We need to learn to place reasonable restrictions on the use of potentially dangerous technology while it’s under nascent development. I have no idea what that would look like, or if it’s possible. I do believe it’s an on going concern. Edit: changed active to nacent to improve clarity.
- relyio 8y ago
  I would wager you simply can't. Levandowski was spearheading the self-driving effort at Google. He was guiding strategy and everything. When a senior employee misbehave it's hard to fire them. When they have a strategic value, it's almost impossible unless they are already lost i.e actively work against the companies interests to further their or a competitor's interests.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
And the people designing them are still just as irresponsible. It's not the technology that needs to be regulated; it's the humans.
freyr 8y ago
70 years ago, flying cars were just around the corner.

That was 7 years ago. 7 years before that video ipods just came out, blogging became a thing, and the best phone out was a razor. That was a whole technological epoc ago.

gsich 8y ago

And yet, 7 years after there are still similar problems with self-driving cars. Don't get too hang up on dates.

gwern 8y ago
There are, for the self-driving car program in question which developed over that 7 years of progres? Can you name a similar incident in the past year of a Waymo car boxing in another car on a highway and sending people to the hospital?
- gsich 8y ago
  Uber sent a woman to the grave. Don't know if that counts for you.
  - gwern 8y ago
    No, it doesn't, because their program sucked from the start, worse than most, and even if they were the best self-driving car program, Uber's has only been around for a few years and so is not a valid counterexample to the claim '7 years won't make a difference'. It sure does seem to've for Waymo.
    - gsich 8y ago
      The same person (Levandowski) worked at Uber. So all his knowledge went to Uber too, obviously. They didn't start at point zero.
      - eiieirurjdndjd 8y ago
        Ah yeah just so you know there is a lot more to building a self driving car system than the general knowledge held in the head of the lead engineer. It is unlikely that he would have known even a tenth of the systems involved in the waymo program at a level of detail required to quickly replicate them.
      - r00fus 8y ago
        All I get from this is that Levandowski and his actions are dangerous for humans.
      - gwern 8y ago
        You mean the person who was fired almost as soon as he got there and which the trial showed had near-zero contribution?
- my_first_acct 8y ago
  It took 7 years for this particular incident to come to light. Until I learned about it, I thought that Google/Waymo was pretty good about disclosures, but now I have to wonder what present-day incidents we will only be finding out about 7 years from now.
CamperBob2 8y ago
And several people died in human-caused wrecks while you were typing that sentence. Nobody seems too hung up on that. Not scary enough, I guess, and you can't blame one or two large monolithic corporations for it. Self-driving cars are one of those instances where painstaking adherence to the precautionary principle is going to get a lot of people killed due to poor risk modeling. This article is a great example, where the reporter has engaged in elaborate rhetorical gymnastics to paint an incident arising from a human driver's poor judgement as the fault of a "rogue engineer."
- onion2k 8y ago
  Nobody seems too hung up on that. I don't think that's true. A lot of people campaign for better road safety.
- dogecoinbase 8y ago
  There's no evidence thus far that self-driving cars will improve road safety. None whatsoever. For the interested, here is an excellent overview of the quality of evidence necessary to prove same: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1478/RAND_RR1478.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Agreed, that looks like an interesting report and I'll definitely spend some time with it. However, the whole idea behind the report is that the reason we don't have the necessary evidence to draw a conclusion is that the cars simply haven't been on the road long enough yet. It accomplishes nothing to pound your desk and proclaim loftily that "There's no evidence whatsoever." I don't see why AVs can't outperform human drivers, and further, I don't see why they need to be built with NASA-level software and hardware quality to meet that goal, as many suggest. That will only increase costs and delay benefits. "Move fast and break things" is a perfectly valid strategy if it results in fatality numbers that spike temporarily and then plunge rapidly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.
- davidgould 8y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

I believe the point is the technology is irrelevant. We need to learn to place reasonable restrictions on the use of potentially dangerous technology while it’s under nascent development. I have no idea what that would look like, or if it’s possible. I do believe it’s an on going concern. Edit: changed active to nacent to improve clarity.

relyio 8y ago
I would wager you simply can't. Levandowski was spearheading the self-driving effort at Google. He was guiding strategy and everything. When a senior employee misbehave it's hard to fire them. When they have a strategic value, it's almost impossible unless they are already lost i.e actively work against the companies interests to further their or a competitor's interests.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

And the people designing them are still just as irresponsible. It's not the technology that needs to be regulated; it's the humans.

freyr 8y ago

70 years ago, flying cars were just around the corner.