4 ms·

> >countless people > We've got very accurate counts. Pointless rebuttal, the exact number isn't relevant, nor easily quoted as the number of deaths per day,

by mythz 7y ago

> >countless people > We've got very accurate counts. Pointless rebuttal, the exact number isn't relevant, nor easily quoted as the number of deaths per day, month, year is fluid, evident as you've made no attempt to quantify an "accurate count" yourself. > Everyone assumes ML / AI will be better drivers than humans, but I think that's just blind hope at this point. You call someone out for non precision then follow up with a baseless supposition that you think people who believe autonomous drivers are safer then human drivers are hopelessly blind. You can include the NHTSA and the U.S. Department of Transportation in your blind hopefuls who are keen on moving towards an automated driving future: https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-safety https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicl...

beerandt 7y ago
Calling something countless is hyperbolic exaggeration. I wasn't expecting an exact number. I also was not expecting hyperbole. NHTSA is no different than the DOE stating their (thusfar inaccurate) expectations for fusion. Government agencies can also express hope. >The continuing evolution of automotive technology aims to deliver even greater safety benefits They have a very well thought out timeline with goals and expectations. But there's no real evidence of why we should expect to hit level 5 driving in a given time frame. It's still just a goal they hope (aim) to hit. Unless there's a Moore's law of AI driving ability that I'm unaware of.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > Calling something countless is hyperbolic exaggeration. I wasn't expecting an exact number. I also was not expecting hyperbole. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion. I meant "countless" simply as in "more than a person could reasonably count". The usage I'm familiar with appears to be different from yours.
- mythz 7y ago
  > Calling something countless is hyperbolic exaggeration. I wasn't expecting an exact number. I also was not expecting hyperbole. It's not a hyperbolic to use "countless" when it's one of the top 10 causes of deaths. > NHTSA is no different than the DOE stating... You're really into your inaccurate strawmans
  - beerandt 7y ago
    1) that is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect. 2) I'm not the one making the claim that a revolutionary technology that will save millions of lives is just around the corner. Will progress be made? Probably. Will an army of driverless cars be safer than the same number of humans driving in X years? Thats a bold statement that requires an explanation beyond "Because technology progesses." I think the comparison to fusion is quite adept at this point. We can re-evaluate in 20-30 years.
    - mythz 7y ago
      > 1) that is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect. Using the word "countless" to describe one of the leading causes of deaths is not close to a valid example of hyberbolic exaggeration. > 2) I'm not the one making the claim that a revolutionary technology that will save millions of lives is just around the corner. You're the only one making proclamations, hypocritical of others for not using exact numbers you wont quote yourself and proclaiming some of the smartest engineers in the world and motor vehicle institutions must be blind hopefuls for investing their efforts in automatic driving solutions to save lives. > I think the comparison to fusion is quite adept at this point. We can re-evaluate in 20-30 years. Says a lot that you think unproven feasible future technology is somehow an adept strawman to actual technology that's driven over 1B miles. Tesla's AutoPilot results for the latest Q2 2019 shows it had 1 accident per 3.27 million miles vs NTHSA's recent statistics showing 1 accident per 498k miles: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport The state of automation is meaningful today, it's not blind hope to presume actively developed technology will improve even more with time, it would be naive to think otherwise and suggest it needs another 20-30 years to evaluate FSD's for viability.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > But there's no real evidence of why we should expect to hit level 5 driving in a given time frame. Not that level 5 is necessary. A good level 3 would make a huge difference. If it can self-park too then it's basically everything I want.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    True, but I meant in more general terms- I'm not sure that we've got a good handle on when to expect any particular level (or achievement), other than the very short term. It seems like even Tesla themselves have Trouble forecasting more than +/- 6 months out. Predicting technological progress is hard, both in terms of timing and absolute ability. And this is before you even get into predicting the market success of a shippable product.

by mythz 7y ago

beerandt 7y ago

Calling something countless is hyperbolic exaggeration. I wasn't expecting an exact number. I also was not expecting hyperbole. NHTSA is no different than the DOE stating their (thusfar inaccurate) expectations for fusion. Government agencies can also express hope. >The continuing evolution of automotive technology aims to deliver even greater safety benefits They have a very well thought out timeline with goals and expectations. But there's no real evidence of why we should expect to hit level 5 driving in a given time frame. It's still just a goal they hope (aim) to hit. Unless there's a Moore's law of AI driving ability that I'm unaware of.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> Calling something countless is hyperbolic exaggeration. I wasn't expecting an exact number. I also was not expecting hyperbole. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion. I meant "countless" simply as in "more than a person could reasonably count". The usage I'm familiar with appears to be different from yours.
mythz 7y ago
> Calling something countless is hyperbolic exaggeration. I wasn't expecting an exact number. I also was not expecting hyperbole. It's not a hyperbolic to use "countless" when it's one of the top 10 causes of deaths. > NHTSA is no different than the DOE stating... You're really into your inaccurate strawmans
- beerandt 7y ago
  1) that is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect. 2) I'm not the one making the claim that a revolutionary technology that will save millions of lives is just around the corner. Will progress be made? Probably. Will an army of driverless cars be safer than the same number of humans driving in X years? Thats a bold statement that requires an explanation beyond "Because technology progesses." I think the comparison to fusion is quite adept at this point. We can re-evaluate in 20-30 years.
  - mythz 7y ago
    > 1) that is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect. Using the word "countless" to describe one of the leading causes of deaths is not close to a valid example of hyberbolic exaggeration. > 2) I'm not the one making the claim that a revolutionary technology that will save millions of lives is just around the corner. You're the only one making proclamations, hypocritical of others for not using exact numbers you wont quote yourself and proclaiming some of the smartest engineers in the world and motor vehicle institutions must be blind hopefuls for investing their efforts in automatic driving solutions to save lives. > I think the comparison to fusion is quite adept at this point. We can re-evaluate in 20-30 years. Says a lot that you think unproven feasible future technology is somehow an adept strawman to actual technology that's driven over 1B miles. Tesla's AutoPilot results for the latest Q2 2019 shows it had 1 accident per 3.27 million miles vs NTHSA's recent statistics showing 1 accident per 498k miles: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport The state of automation is meaningful today, it's not blind hope to presume actively developed technology will improve even more with time, it would be naive to think otherwise and suggest it needs another 20-30 years to evaluate FSD's for viability.
Dylan16807 7y ago
> But there's no real evidence of why we should expect to hit level 5 driving in a given time frame. Not that level 5 is necessary. A good level 3 would make a huge difference. If it can self-park too then it's basically everything I want.
- beerandt 7y ago
  True, but I meant in more general terms- I'm not sure that we've got a good handle on when to expect any particular level (or achievement), other than the very short term. It seems like even Tesla themselves have Trouble forecasting more than +/- 6 months out. Predicting technological progress is hard, both in terms of timing and absolute ability. And this is before you even get into predicting the market success of a shippable product.