5 ms·

Optimistically; maybe everybody is hiding their 'secret sauce'. But I expect you're probably right.

fxtentacle 7y ago
I was optimistic like that in university. Great times :) But then I went into consulting and saw that big companies have teams of lawyers that settle proactively out of court to keep inconvenient truths out of the public opinion. Like the first few exploding iPhones. (Just an example, never worked there) BTW, did you hear about the Uber crash where their AI couldn't track a pedestrian and then killed her?
- mistahenry 7y ago
  That’s an unfair characterization if you’re talking about the crash in Arizona. Perhaps: “Did you hear about the Uber crash where the AI couldn’t track a pedestrian jaywalking at night across the middle of a nearly pitch black two lane highway and then killed her?” would have been more apt. https://youtu.be/ufNNuafuU7M https://youtu.be/ufNNuafuU7M That being said, I’m a huge skeptic of the current state of self driving cars. I would have assumed these systems use LIDAR as well as vision and could have at least slammed on the brakes.
  - Piskvorrr 7y ago
    A more precise narrative, as shown in the evidence submitted by Uber to NTSB (as opposed to the PR video), is "AI saw something for 6 seconds, but because it couldn't decide what it is, it drove through. Turned out to be a human."
  - thombat 7y ago
    It only looks pitch black in Uber's badly-exposed dashcam video. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22307013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22307013
    - mistahenry 7y ago
      oh wow, that is certainly different than the news video which I assumed was relatively unbiased
  - keanzu 7y ago
    Police concluded that given the same conditions, Herzberg would have been visible to 85% of motorists at a distance of 143 feet (44 m), 5.7 seconds before the car struck Herzberg. A vehicle traveling 43 mph (69 km/h) can generally stop within 89 feet (27 m) once the brakes are applied. The police explanation of Herzberg's path meant she had already crossed two lanes of traffic before she was struck by the autonomous vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg I was also misled by the poorly exposed "official" video. Given the numbers above there was time for a human driver to see her and even come to a complete stop. Further since she was moving from one side of the road to the other and only entered directly into the vehicle's path in the last 1.3 seconds (image in "Software issues" section of wikipedia article) it is likely that all that would have been needed to avoid the collision would have been a minor slow down and she would have completed her crossing safely.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      I hate that people attribute that accident to a visual issue because of that video. It wasn't a visual issue. It was 100% a programming issue and everyone involved should be criminally liable for negligence, IMO.

I was optimistic like that in university. Great times :) But then I went into consulting and saw that big companies have teams of lawyers that settle proactively out of court to keep inconvenient truths out of the public opinion. Like the first few exploding iPhones. (Just an example, never worked there) BTW, did you hear about the Uber crash where their AI couldn't track a pedestrian and then killed her?

mistahenry 7y ago
That’s an unfair characterization if you’re talking about the crash in Arizona. Perhaps: “Did you hear about the Uber crash where the AI couldn’t track a pedestrian jaywalking at night across the middle of a nearly pitch black two lane highway and then killed her?” would have been more apt. https://youtu.be/ufNNuafuU7M https://youtu.be/ufNNuafuU7M That being said, I’m a huge skeptic of the current state of self driving cars. I would have assumed these systems use LIDAR as well as vision and could have at least slammed on the brakes.
- Piskvorrr 7y ago
  A more precise narrative, as shown in the evidence submitted by Uber to NTSB (as opposed to the PR video), is "AI saw something for 6 seconds, but because it couldn't decide what it is, it drove through. Turned out to be a human."
- thombat 7y ago
  It only looks pitch black in Uber's badly-exposed dashcam video. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22307013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22307013
  - mistahenry 7y ago
    oh wow, that is certainly different than the news video which I assumed was relatively unbiased
- keanzu 7y ago
  Police concluded that given the same conditions, Herzberg would have been visible to 85% of motorists at a distance of 143 feet (44 m), 5.7 seconds before the car struck Herzberg. A vehicle traveling 43 mph (69 km/h) can generally stop within 89 feet (27 m) once the brakes are applied. The police explanation of Herzberg's path meant she had already crossed two lanes of traffic before she was struck by the autonomous vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg I was also misled by the poorly exposed "official" video. Given the numbers above there was time for a human driver to see her and even come to a complete stop. Further since she was moving from one side of the road to the other and only entered directly into the vehicle's path in the last 1.3 seconds (image in "Software issues" section of wikipedia article) it is likely that all that would have been needed to avoid the collision would have been a minor slow down and she would have completed her crossing safely.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    I hate that people attribute that accident to a visual issue because of that video. It wasn't a visual issue. It was 100% a programming issue and everyone involved should be criminally liable for negligence, IMO.