4 ms·
It's not that it has to be no-fail it's that the failures need to be a subset of the failures that humans make. If the failures are in places that humans can e
by hellllllllooo 8y ago
It's not that it has to be no-fail it's that the failures need to be a subset of the failures that humans make.
If the failures are in places that humans can easily and reliably handle (which is the case now) then people won't trust these systems. If the failures are created by the software not being able to handle basic driving tasks and wouldn't normally happen with a person driving then this is a huge problem with the system. A system that repeatedly drives at a lane divider repeatedly is not something people should trust.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/03/dashcam-video-shows-tesla-steering-toward-lane-divider-again/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/03/dashcam-video-shows-tes...
- SilasX 8y agoYes! I think that’s the right way to measure whether you’ve solved self-driving cars: if it has similar (possibly worse) failure rates to humans in each environment where humans are expected to operate. Example: say an SDC never had collisions except when a cop is directing traffic, and in that case it floors it full speed to the cop. I would not consider that to have solved self driving cars, even though dealing with a cop directing traffic is so rare that its accident rate is lower.