2 ms·
This headline (and article) is IMHO promoting a unit-less metric. There's no mention of the yield in quality improvement per hour of simulation. I.e., how muc
by khazhoux 7y ago
This headline (and article) is IMHO promoting a unit-less metric.
There's no mention of the yield in quality improvement per hour of simulation. I.e., how much better does the vehicle drive using the learnings from these 876,000 sim hours?
Once a sim pipeline is set up, it's "easy" to scale up the number of hours it runs (throw it more compute resources, throw it more scenarios). But that doesn't mean the analysis scales up, or the quality of the sim results, or the application of analysis to bug fixes or feature development.
- angstrom 7y agoAs far as I'm concerned the only number that matters is the real world mean distance between failure/incident.
- catalogia 7y agoAs an driver, I think too much emphasis is placed on those global mean crash/fatality rate statistics. That sort of analysis is too reductive. By not being an alcoholic and choosing to always wear a seatbelt, not driving in bad weather, choosing to obey the speed limit, etc.. individuals can deliberately boost their chances well above the national mean. Insurance companies charge different people different rates because they aren't so reductive as to only consider national averages. The response I usually get when I talk about is "everybody thinks they're better than average, so changes are equally good you're not", but that too is too reductive. Loads of people drive drunk, while I know that I don't. That alone significantly stacks the odds in my favor for the likelihood that I'm correct in thinking I'm above the average.