6 ms·

Bear case for self-driving: in 1 million miles of driving, roughly the number between major human accidents, do we really think these cars will not encounter on

Bear case for self-driving: in 1 million miles of driving, roughly the number between major human accidents, do we really think these cars will not encounter one AI-complete problem.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
In order for there to be a major accident, there not only has to be a mistake, it has to be a mistake with a major consequence, and it has to be that nobody else there avoided it either. In general a car that doesn't see a pedestrian isn't a major accident unless the pedestrian also doesn't see the car. If not for that there would be a whole lot more fatalities with human drivers as well. A self-driving car obviously shouldn't do that, but neither should a human, and they do. Which makes it less hard for the computer to do it at least as well. You can also expect the computers to improve over time by learning from each others' mistakes, which human drivers generally don't.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  While it is the case that it usually takes two people to cause an accident, there are plenty of scenarios where there is only one person who is capable of taking the action necessary to avoid it. For example, an elderly person in the crosswalk is not going to be capable of getting out of the way of a speeding car. It's already the case that pedestrian/car collisions are usually written off as the pedestrian's fault until proven otherwise--the Uber self-driving car that killed a pedestrian is a great example of that in action.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    And the same is true of human drivers, is my point. You don't just need the mistake, you need all the other things to go wrong too. The pedestrian entered the crosswalk even though a car was coming, instead of waiting to make sure the car stops first (as pedestrians often do). The car failed to identify something. The thing it failed to identify was a pedestrian and not a mailbox or a trashcan. The pedestrian was elderly and couldn't jump out of the way fast enough etc. It all has to go wrong at once. Mistakes are common but most mistakes aren't fatal.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      > Mistakes are common but most mistakes aren't fatal. And by choosing to drive a car, you are dramatically raising the odds that any mistake you make is fatal (not necessarily to you). While my personal experience on the matter is thankfully limited, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of vehicular-pedestrian accidents are mostly (or entirely) the fault of the driver, where the pedestrian started an action where it was safe to do so and the driver rapidly caused it to become unsafe before the pedestrian could react.
perl4ever 6y ago
Is 1 million miles really the approximate distance between major accidents? Because in a lifetime, many people would approach that, and yet most people don't die in auto accidents.
- leereeves 6y ago
  According to AAA, in the US there is approximately one injury accident per million miles driven, and one fatal accident per 100 million miles: https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuri...
- jdxcode 6y ago
  I think most people are in a major car accident at some point in their life. Major doesn't mean death.
- Marsymars 6y ago
  Besides what the other replies have said, you can also work backwards from insurance rates and margins, and it generally tracks.
dreamcompiler 6y ago
It is perfectly reasonable to expect these cars to do at least as well as humans at avoiding mind-bogglingly stupid scenarios that the least experienced driver could avoid while drunk, talking on the phone, and applying makeup. This is absolutely one of those scenarios.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  We hold machines to much higher standards. We accept human imperfection and human error. People killing people on the road because they are sleepy or not paying attention is a risk we are willing to accept. The reason is that people have a skin in the game themselves. Being in a accident means they risk injury, fines, jail time. I think few are willing to accept autopilots that are only as bad as (or as good as) humans. They must be significantly better than human drivers, simply because we don't accept their errors like we do human errors. This is completely irrational when looked at purely from a safety point of view (Who doesn't want safer roads?), but this obstacle is very real. Worse: that autonomous cars are better in many scenarios or aspects (they don't get sleepy, they are never drunk) doesn't mean we accept that they are ever worse in any other aspect, despite the total safety being better. That is: autonomous vehicles must not just be as good as human drivers, they must be significantly better (or at least safer) than human drivers. And not only that, they must be significatly better in every aspect of driving, for them to gain acceptance.
  - a_imho 6y ago
    It is not irrational because self driving cars are not interchangeable with human drivers 1-1. If autonomous cars are put on roads it is very likely net traffic increases. We put up with bad driving because we have to, this is absolutely not the case for machines. I, personally, don't want more average drivers on the roads.
  - Jasper_ 6y ago
    The problem is that the flaws of humans tend to be random and stochastic, while the flaws of machines tend to be consistent and systematic. This is the at least the fifth example of Tesla missing stationary objects on the road. Humans might have a judgment failure every so often, but they might realize how unsafe they are and change their behavior, or drive less, or get their license taken away. A machine consistently crashing cars has no self correction protocol, and will consistently make the same mistake over and over.

Bear case for self-driving: in 1 million miles of driving, roughly the number between major human accidents, do we really think these cars will not encounter one AI-complete problem.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

In order for there to be a major accident, there not only has to be a mistake, it has to be a mistake with a major consequence, and it has to be that nobody else there avoided it either. In general a car that doesn't see a pedestrian isn't a major accident unless the pedestrian also doesn't see the car. If not for that there would be a whole lot more fatalities with human drivers as well. A self-driving car obviously shouldn't do that, but neither should a human, and they do. Which makes it less hard for the computer to do it at least as well. You can also expect the computers to improve over time by learning from each others' mistakes, which human drivers generally don't.

jcranmer 6y ago
While it is the case that it usually takes two people to cause an accident, there are plenty of scenarios where there is only one person who is capable of taking the action necessary to avoid it. For example, an elderly person in the crosswalk is not going to be capable of getting out of the way of a speeding car. It's already the case that pedestrian/car collisions are usually written off as the pedestrian's fault until proven otherwise--the Uber self-driving car that killed a pedestrian is a great example of that in action.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  And the same is true of human drivers, is my point. You don't just need the mistake, you need all the other things to go wrong too. The pedestrian entered the crosswalk even though a car was coming, instead of waiting to make sure the car stops first (as pedestrians often do). The car failed to identify something. The thing it failed to identify was a pedestrian and not a mailbox or a trashcan. The pedestrian was elderly and couldn't jump out of the way fast enough etc. It all has to go wrong at once. Mistakes are common but most mistakes aren't fatal.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > Mistakes are common but most mistakes aren't fatal. And by choosing to drive a car, you are dramatically raising the odds that any mistake you make is fatal (not necessarily to you). While my personal experience on the matter is thankfully limited, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of vehicular-pedestrian accidents are mostly (or entirely) the fault of the driver, where the pedestrian started an action where it was safe to do so and the driver rapidly caused it to become unsafe before the pedestrian could react.

perl4ever 6y ago

Is 1 million miles really the approximate distance between major accidents? Because in a lifetime, many people would approach that, and yet most people don't die in auto accidents.

leereeves 6y ago
According to AAA, in the US there is approximately one injury accident per million miles driven, and one fatal accident per 100 million miles: https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuri...
jdxcode 6y ago
I think most people are in a major car accident at some point in their life. Major doesn't mean death.
Marsymars 6y ago
Besides what the other replies have said, you can also work backwards from insurance rates and margins, and it generally tracks.

dreamcompiler 6y ago

It is perfectly reasonable to expect these cars to do at least as well as humans at avoiding mind-bogglingly stupid scenarios that the least experienced driver could avoid while drunk, talking on the phone, and applying makeup. This is absolutely one of those scenarios.

alkonaut 6y ago
We hold machines to much higher standards. We accept human imperfection and human error. People killing people on the road because they are sleepy or not paying attention is a risk we are willing to accept. The reason is that people have a skin in the game themselves. Being in a accident means they risk injury, fines, jail time. I think few are willing to accept autopilots that are only as bad as (or as good as) humans. They must be significantly better than human drivers, simply because we don't accept their errors like we do human errors. This is completely irrational when looked at purely from a safety point of view (Who doesn't want safer roads?), but this obstacle is very real. Worse: that autonomous cars are better in many scenarios or aspects (they don't get sleepy, they are never drunk) doesn't mean we accept that they are ever worse in any other aspect, despite the total safety being better. That is: autonomous vehicles must not just be as good as human drivers, they must be significantly better (or at least safer) than human drivers. And not only that, they must be significatly better in every aspect of driving, for them to gain acceptance.
- a_imho 6y ago
  It is not irrational because self driving cars are not interchangeable with human drivers 1-1. If autonomous cars are put on roads it is very likely net traffic increases. We put up with bad driving because we have to, this is absolutely not the case for machines. I, personally, don't want more average drivers on the roads.
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  The problem is that the flaws of humans tend to be random and stochastic, while the flaws of machines tend to be consistent and systematic. This is the at least the fifth example of Tesla missing stationary objects on the road. Humans might have a judgment failure every so often, but they might realize how unsafe they are and change their behavior, or drive less, or get their license taken away. A machine consistently crashing cars has no self correction protocol, and will consistently make the same mistake over and over.