4 ms·
I see what you're getting at, but there is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance at play here. If a person driving a car strikes a pedestrian, there may be a
by ezzzzz 7y ago
I see what you're getting at, but there is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance at play here. If a person driving a car strikes a pedestrian, there may be a grey area as to who was at fault. What was the speed of the driver? Was the driver impaired? Was the pedestrian impaired? Was the driver's view obstructed, was the pedestrians view obstructed? Etc, etc.
But when a system that is designed to autonomously detect infinite, non-discrete, random variables fails prevent a collision/incident, you have a failure. There is no grey area, Y or N. The hope is, the system is smart enough to determine exactly 'why' there was a failure (i.e. the system recognizes the input, a pedestrian in this case, but was not able to prevent collision due to the constraints of physics, or without a nominal increase for concurrent accidents). Still a failure, albeit a failure with a greater snapshot of heuristics and causality.
- viklove 7y agoYou're getting stuck up in pedantry when only one thing matters: Do AI drivers kill fewer pedestrians than human drivers?
- ulisesrmzroche 7y agoAll evidence points to nope.
- ezzzzz 7y agoCitation needed. This is my argument. Unless you are working for Uber/Tesla/Waymo where is the data? I'd even be satisfied with seeing incidents where the system successfully avoided collisions, at least as a baseline. How do regression lines trend in comparison to non-autonomous cars considering scale?
- mandevil 7y agoI'm pretty sure if they were better than humans by any real statistical margin they would be trumpeting that in press releases. The fact that they work so hard to maintain such secrecy- only revealing data that they are legally mandated to- suggests that they, the people must familiar with the system performance, think it is inadequate. In essence, because the people who control the data have an interest in revealing data that is superior to human performance, the lack of conclusive data on this leads to an inference that it isn't.
- romwell 7y ago>Citation needed. Sure! Traffic fatalities in the US, human drivers: 1.25 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U... Uber's self-driving car fatality rate: 1 death per 2 million miles[2] That is, Uber's state-of-the-art is an order of magnitude worse than human drivers. I know, you'll complain about small sample size. The thing is, assuming Uber's cars match humans, the chances of a collision happening only after 2 million miles are very small, like pulling an ace of spades out of a shuffled deck of cards. The point is, we do have the data, and the data does not support optimistic beliefs. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U... [2]https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/10/waymo-has-driven-10-million-miles-on-public-roads-thats-a-big-deal/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/10/waymo-has-driven-10-mil...
- ezzzzz 7y agoSure, but do they? Can we really know with such different sample sizes?
- romwell 7y agoRegarding sample sizes. Say, you claim your product works, on the average, for 80 years before breaking. I believe you, buy it, and it promptly breaks within 2 years of operation. Maybe I was unlucky. But high more likely, you were bullshitting me. That's what we have here. Human death rate: 1 death / 80 million miles Uber's death rate: 1 death after 2 million miles So yes, we can make judgement calls.
- rohit2412 7y agoI've never understood techno-optimists on this point. If Uber has such amazing technology that avoids accidents, they could deploy them as accident-avoidance for regular drivers. They could give normal driving control to the humans, and take over only if there is a potential of accident. If you argue that these driver assistance technologies already exist, then you better not be comparing your magical AI on supersafe cars with sunny climate on well marked highways to the average driver on the average vehicle under average climate on average roads.
- ezzzzz 7y agoThat is a good point, especially when considering that modern cars have semi-autonomous controls which are likely to actually be effective in preventing ‘human’ failures, while still maintaining the UX of a non-autonomous vehicle. Another point to consider, is that the actual experience of autonomous driving may increase the likelihood for ‘manual intervention’ failures due to the system being able to react correctly most of the time!