2 ms·
> would you be willing to bet your entire car on a black box piece of code that seems reliable, because it worked most of the time in the past For the average
by chrisfosterelli 8y ago
> would you be willing to bet your entire car on a black box piece of code that seems reliable, because it worked most of the time in the past
For the average non-technical person, this is pretty much their relationship with all technology.
I don't think it's exclusive to tech either. I know lots of people that have absolutely no idea how the mechanical side of a car works, but they trust their lives to one at 100km/hr because it has worked generally pretty well in the past.
- apta 8y ago> I know lots of people that have absolutely no idea how the mechanical side of a car works, but they trust their lives to one at 100km/hr because it has worked generally pretty well in the past. Car safety has made great progress in the past 10 or so years. People don't have to know how they work under the hood as long as designers and engineers already built safety into them and these designs have been heavily tested by third parties (e.g. Euro NCAP, IIHS, etc) Self driving cars will have to prove their safety, especially in extreme weather and non paved roads.
- chrisfosterelli 8y agoDefinitely! Everyone here agrees that they need to prove themselves effective, and there is more work to do there. I think Geoff's point that the parent poster disagrees with is that it isn't necessary to completely understand every single aspect of the model's weights in order to be able to empirically validate it as safe.
- criddell 8y agoEvery year something like 30,000 people are killed in car crashes in the US. Say the introduction of self-driving cars cuts that number in half and also say that of those 15,000 deaths, 2/3 of them are due to software or system errors, that's still progress, isn't it?