4 ms·

You can treat it as a single entity. The questionable thing is then throwing out 'the consensus' because a single other expert gives a different prediction.

by Tenoke 7y ago

The_rationalist 7y ago
What are you talking about? There is no scientific consensus that fully autonomous cars will be available for 2020s. It require necessarily AGI cognition on some tasks and research have zero clue, zero formal roadmap to achieve AGI. Thus any prediction is baseless, absurd wishful thinking. As what I say is true, unless a sound refutation is provided, this should be the scientific consensus.
- Tenoke 7y ago
  We are talking about the linked article. In it there is a an estimate by a bunch of scientists which has been rejected in favour of one person's estimate. None of it is about 2020 by that point in the article or this discussion. Perhaps, you are confused because you thought we are talking about a worldwide scientific consensus? >As what I say is true, unless a sound refutation is provided, this should be the scientific consensus. This is not what consensus means (and again, nobody is claiming today that there is a consensus that self-driving cars will arrive in 2020).
  - The_rationalist 7y ago
    you are confused because you thought we are talking about a worldwide scientific consensus? Yes.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Why would fully autonomous cars require AGI? Yes, an "AI" that is simply a collection of situational task-specific algorithms will encounter situations it can't handle. But humans encounter situations they can't handle too. A fully autonomous but non-AGI car could simply do what humans do: pull over, turn around, or call for help.
  - The_rationalist 7y ago
    I'll give you a trivial example: to my knowledge, current AI cannot accurately drive when there is rain or snow. The thing is, there are much more situations than a human can handle than the best pattern matcher of the world can. Some situations just require reasoning beyong pattern matching and current AI are all about correlations but have zero causal reasoning ability.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Both Waymo and Torc's cars are already driving in rain and snow (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiWM1KjIm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiWM1KjIm4). > The thing is, there are much more situations than a human can handle than the best pattern matcher of the world can. Some situations just require reasoning beyong pattern matching and current AI are all about correlations but have zero causal reasoning ability. Sure, but are there many situations where reasoning is required to not have an accident? I mean, humans aren't great at sudden reasoning either, it's something that takes time to engage in. I don't really care if my car just can't handle tricky situations, as long as it doesn't hit anyone or stops in the middle of the highway.
  - short_sells_poo 7y ago
    > A fully autonomous but non-AGI car could simply do what humans do: pull over, turn around, or call for help. Right or wrong, there is going to be (as you can already see on Tesla) disproportionately harsh response to the AI failing in a car, doubly so if it results in an accident. Humans mess up, and if someone is found to be at fault, they are punished. We also feel compassion to other human beings. E.g. killing another human, doubly so when by accident (ie not premeditated), is likely haunt anyone to the end of their own life. A machine is afforded no such sympathy, and if anything, the machine is looked at with vastly increased suspicion and scrutiny because it lacks empathy. We have to face reality here. If the current implementations do a hack job and just handwave problems away: "meh, humans make mistakes too", they run a very strong risk that there is going to be a big backlash, people in general will write self driving cars off as fundamentally unsafe and set progress back 50 years. A technology like this has to adapt to humans and our biases, the other way around is not happening.

You can treat it as a single entity. The questionable thing is then throwing out 'the consensus' because a single other expert gives a different prediction.

by Tenoke 7y ago

You can treat it as a single entity. The questionable thing is then throwing out 'the consensus' because a single other expert gives a different prediction.

The_rationalist 7y ago

What are you talking about? There is no scientific consensus that fully autonomous cars will be available for 2020s. It require necessarily AGI cognition on some tasks and research have zero clue, zero formal roadmap to achieve AGI. Thus any prediction is baseless, absurd wishful thinking. As what I say is true, unless a sound refutation is provided, this should be the scientific consensus.

Tenoke 7y ago
We are talking about the linked article. In it there is a an estimate by a bunch of scientists which has been rejected in favour of one person's estimate. None of it is about 2020 by that point in the article or this discussion. Perhaps, you are confused because you thought we are talking about a worldwide scientific consensus? >As what I say is true, unless a sound refutation is provided, this should be the scientific consensus. This is not what consensus means (and again, nobody is claiming today that there is a consensus that self-driving cars will arrive in 2020).
- The_rationalist 7y ago
  you are confused because you thought we are talking about a worldwide scientific consensus? Yes.
leereeves 7y ago
Why would fully autonomous cars require AGI? Yes, an "AI" that is simply a collection of situational task-specific algorithms will encounter situations it can't handle. But humans encounter situations they can't handle too. A fully autonomous but non-AGI car could simply do what humans do: pull over, turn around, or call for help.
- The_rationalist 7y ago
  I'll give you a trivial example: to my knowledge, current AI cannot accurately drive when there is rain or snow. The thing is, there are much more situations than a human can handle than the best pattern matcher of the world can. Some situations just require reasoning beyong pattern matching and current AI are all about correlations but have zero causal reasoning ability.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Both Waymo and Torc's cars are already driving in rain and snow (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiWM1KjIm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiWM1KjIm4). > The thing is, there are much more situations than a human can handle than the best pattern matcher of the world can. Some situations just require reasoning beyong pattern matching and current AI are all about correlations but have zero causal reasoning ability. Sure, but are there many situations where reasoning is required to not have an accident? I mean, humans aren't great at sudden reasoning either, it's something that takes time to engage in. I don't really care if my car just can't handle tricky situations, as long as it doesn't hit anyone or stops in the middle of the highway.
- short_sells_poo 7y ago
  > A fully autonomous but non-AGI car could simply do what humans do: pull over, turn around, or call for help. Right or wrong, there is going to be (as you can already see on Tesla) disproportionately harsh response to the AI failing in a car, doubly so if it results in an accident. Humans mess up, and if someone is found to be at fault, they are punished. We also feel compassion to other human beings. E.g. killing another human, doubly so when by accident (ie not premeditated), is likely haunt anyone to the end of their own life. A machine is afforded no such sympathy, and if anything, the machine is looked at with vastly increased suspicion and scrutiny because it lacks empathy. We have to face reality here. If the current implementations do a hack job and just handwave problems away: "meh, humans make mistakes too", they run a very strong risk that there is going to be a big backlash, people in general will write self driving cars off as fundamentally unsafe and set progress back 50 years. A technology like this has to adapt to humans and our biases, the other way around is not happening.