3 ms·

I think that sums it up really well. In those kind of edge cases like the basket ball, if an AI driver didn’t slow down and then killed a kid, we’d all be up in

I think that sums it up really well. In those kind of edge cases like the basket ball, if an AI driver didn’t slow down and then killed a kid, we’d all be up in arms about It saying how obvious it was that a kid would run out, and we’d have stopped, and we’d be right. But at the same time that AI driver will have stopped in time when 10 other kids jumped out without any warning because it has much, much better reflexes. But it’ll be the first instance that will get all the airtime.

rubicon33 7y ago
Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year. Think about that. Self driving cars aren't just a solution to nuisance of driving. They're a solution to one of the leading causes of DEATH and INJURY in the country. Sure there are going to be edge cases where we as humans will be able to point at the car and say "damnit, we could have prevented that"! But I sure hope when we do that, the car points right back at us and asks "And for the other 1.20 million lives I've saved this year? You would have killed them"
- rayiner 7y ago
  > Sure there are going to be edge cases where we as humans will be able to point at the car and say "damnit, we could have prevented that"! This is a meaningless assertion unless you account for how often "edge cases" arise. If unpredictable pedestrians, unplanned road construction, etc., is an "edge case" the car basically won't work in DC or New York.
  - smt88 7y ago
    It doesn't need to work in every place to be useful or worthwhile. Sleepy truck drivers are a major safety issue by themselves, and highways are easier for SDCs to drive on.
  - volkk 7y ago
    i would assume that for the first X years, aka a long time, the SDCs would operate mostly on highways/very rural areas.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  > They're a solution no, they will, at some point in the future, be a solution. until we seen serious miles in comparable conditions they are an unproven technology, that why I appreciate waymo approach of getting from here to there slowly and carefully compared to Tesla which has a dozen death already under the autopilot and hides them under a pile of pr and terms of services. but for all the tech they throw at it until the fundamental issues of cognition and prediction are solved they will only be able to reduce a fraction of the accidents because they aren't replacing the most dangerous vehicles on the road and they only are better for a subset of cases, like inattentive or impaired/intoxicated driver.
- air7 7y ago
  That's a misleading statistic. The death rate is around 1 per a billion kms driven. One might argue that humans are actually very good at driving.
  - rubicon33 7y ago
    It's not really a misleading stat. Sure, humans drive a lot. The idea is that self driving cars will also, drive a lot. Nobody is saying humans are terrible drivers (well, some maybe are). But if there's something better...
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  >> Self driving cars aren't just a solution to nuisance of driving. They're a solution to one of the leading causes of DEATH and INJURY in the country. If reducing DEATH and INJURY are the motivation for self-driving cars, we can achieve a larger reduction with technology that is available right now: public transport. And there is even a no-technology solution: a drastic reduction of road traffic that passes through residential areas. Putting more cars on the road might or might not reduce DEATH and INJURY, given that those cars are going to be self-driving. But _removing_ cars from roads will _certainly_ reduce DEATH and INJURY- and also reduce the environmental damage from the cars' internal combustion engines and the infrastructure needed for those cars to circulate. Considering all of the above, I'm really not convinced that the self-driving car industry is really that interested in reducing DEATH and INJURY. I think their main motive is to increase PROFIT.
  - rubicon33 7y ago
    I don't think anyone is debating that the #1 factor driving the innovation of self driving cars is profit. That said, the benefits of self driving cars aren't precluded by the motives for developing them. While I hear your points about removing cars from the road, and generally agree with them, there are definite benefits to cars which are arguably not replaced by things like public transit. There will always be a need for cars, so lets make them as safe as possible. If self driving is a step in that direction, sign me up.
beerandt 7y ago
Yes, except this presumes that AI would recognize the kid at the same time as a human driver. Or at least soon enough such that AI's quicker reflexes can compensate for any delay. If AI can't recognize some obstacles at all, then I think it's safe to assume there may be some delay in obstacle recognition compared to humans.
- jonplackett 7y ago
  You’re probably right. The point I’m making though is there’s going to be some things AI is better at and some things humans are better at and it’s going to be much harder to accept dead people between those points.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I agree. I just don't get why: 1) Everyone assumes the good will outweigh the bad. (And why proof of humans doing one task better than AI is somehow also taken as self-evident proof that the AI will be better at everything else.) 2) No one assumes that we, as humans, will ever be able to improve our driving skills in way that can keep up with AI advances. Someone could invent a magic driving pill. Which is crazy. I just don't assume that it's any crazier than a near-perfect driving AI.
visarga 7y ago
> if an AI driver didn’t slow down and then killed a kid An AI driver would have 360 degree coverage with much faster reaction time - think about the cases where a car brakes before the passenger even realises there is danger ahead.

rubicon33 7y ago

Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year. Think about that. Self driving cars aren't just a solution to nuisance of driving. They're a solution to one of the leading causes of DEATH and INJURY in the country. Sure there are going to be edge cases where we as humans will be able to point at the car and say "damnit, we could have prevented that"! But I sure hope when we do that, the car points right back at us and asks "And for the other 1.20 million lives I've saved this year? You would have killed them"

rayiner 7y ago
> Sure there are going to be edge cases where we as humans will be able to point at the car and say "damnit, we could have prevented that"! This is a meaningless assertion unless you account for how often "edge cases" arise. If unpredictable pedestrians, unplanned road construction, etc., is an "edge case" the car basically won't work in DC or New York.
- smt88 7y ago
  It doesn't need to work in every place to be useful or worthwhile. Sleepy truck drivers are a major safety issue by themselves, and highways are easier for SDCs to drive on.
- volkk 7y ago
  i would assume that for the first X years, aka a long time, the SDCs would operate mostly on highways/very rural areas.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
> They're a solution no, they will, at some point in the future, be a solution. until we seen serious miles in comparable conditions they are an unproven technology, that why I appreciate waymo approach of getting from here to there slowly and carefully compared to Tesla which has a dozen death already under the autopilot and hides them under a pile of pr and terms of services. but for all the tech they throw at it until the fundamental issues of cognition and prediction are solved they will only be able to reduce a fraction of the accidents because they aren't replacing the most dangerous vehicles on the road and they only are better for a subset of cases, like inattentive or impaired/intoxicated driver.
air7 7y ago
That's a misleading statistic. The death rate is around 1 per a billion kms driven. One might argue that humans are actually very good at driving.
- rubicon33 7y ago
  It's not really a misleading stat. Sure, humans drive a lot. The idea is that self driving cars will also, drive a lot. Nobody is saying humans are terrible drivers (well, some maybe are). But if there's something better...
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> Self driving cars aren't just a solution to nuisance of driving. They're a solution to one of the leading causes of DEATH and INJURY in the country. If reducing DEATH and INJURY are the motivation for self-driving cars, we can achieve a larger reduction with technology that is available right now: public transport. And there is even a no-technology solution: a drastic reduction of road traffic that passes through residential areas. Putting more cars on the road might or might not reduce DEATH and INJURY, given that those cars are going to be self-driving. But _removing_ cars from roads will _certainly_ reduce DEATH and INJURY- and also reduce the environmental damage from the cars' internal combustion engines and the infrastructure needed for those cars to circulate. Considering all of the above, I'm really not convinced that the self-driving car industry is really that interested in reducing DEATH and INJURY. I think their main motive is to increase PROFIT.
- rubicon33 7y ago
  I don't think anyone is debating that the #1 factor driving the innovation of self driving cars is profit. That said, the benefits of self driving cars aren't precluded by the motives for developing them. While I hear your points about removing cars from the road, and generally agree with them, there are definite benefits to cars which are arguably not replaced by things like public transit. There will always be a need for cars, so lets make them as safe as possible. If self driving is a step in that direction, sign me up.

beerandt 7y ago

Yes, except this presumes that AI would recognize the kid at the same time as a human driver. Or at least soon enough such that AI's quicker reflexes can compensate for any delay. If AI can't recognize some obstacles at all, then I think it's safe to assume there may be some delay in obstacle recognition compared to humans.

jonplackett 7y ago
You’re probably right. The point I’m making though is there’s going to be some things AI is better at and some things humans are better at and it’s going to be much harder to accept dead people between those points.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I agree. I just don't get why: 1) Everyone assumes the good will outweigh the bad. (And why proof of humans doing one task better than AI is somehow also taken as self-evident proof that the AI will be better at everything else.) 2) No one assumes that we, as humans, will ever be able to improve our driving skills in way that can keep up with AI advances. Someone could invent a magic driving pill. Which is crazy. I just don't assume that it's any crazier than a near-perfect driving AI.

visarga 7y ago

> if an AI driver didn’t slow down and then killed a kid An AI driver would have 360 degree coverage with much faster reaction time - think about the cases where a car brakes before the passenger even realises there is danger ahead.