4 ms·

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

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.
losteric 6y ago
If there was an autopilot that nailed every scenario in any weather condition except clearly overturned trucks in good weather, should that system be approved for general public use?
- gambiting 6y ago
  Nope, it shouldn't. A system that happily plows into a massive static object that blocks 3 lanes of traffic just because the system didn't recognize it as a danger should never be allowed on the road. In fact Tesla should remotely disable autopilot on every single car out there until this is investigated, tested and patched. And even then I have my reservations about the naming, it's not an autopilot.
- totalZero 6y ago
  Considering the fact that accidents often attract bystanders and emergency personnel to help the incapacitated driver, the inability to avoid an existing wreck in clear weather is a glaring hazard to human life. Moreover, trucks sometimes contain hazardous or flammable materials. So the answer to your question is a resounding no, in my view.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Huh, on the balance of things refusing to use such a system would cost a lot of lives.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      Only if there weren't alternative systems that were just as good and also managed to avoid this problem. Which seems unlikely.
      - brutt 6y ago
        There are. Use two or three alternative AI implementations, which will watch each other. Kind of famous "Predator" algo, but for driving. If one will fail, second will pick up. If one makes mistakes, second will teach it.
devonkim 6y ago
The other scenario is whether fully autonomous vehicles out-perform humans in sufficiently many other scenarios such that we will consider the comparatively rare scenario of an overturned truck not that big of a deal compared to the massive numbers killed due to raw human carelessness. Furthermore, autonomous vehicles will likely get better and better at driving collectively, something which I would make a heavy bet against for human drivers.
- dreamcompiler 6y ago
  No. For two reasons: 1. Technology should not make mind-bogglingly stupid mistakes like this, regardless of how rare they are in the grand scheme of things. 2. Because these systems use neural nets, they're black boxes and it's impossible to conduct a proper engineering analysis on them to find out when they will fail. Fuzzing the system with live humans is not engineering; it's callous disregard for human life and anybody who practices it should lose the right to call themselves an engineer.

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.

losteric 6y ago

If there was an autopilot that nailed every scenario in any weather condition except clearly overturned trucks in good weather, should that system be approved for general public use?

gambiting 6y ago
Nope, it shouldn't. A system that happily plows into a massive static object that blocks 3 lanes of traffic just because the system didn't recognize it as a danger should never be allowed on the road. In fact Tesla should remotely disable autopilot on every single car out there until this is investigated, tested and patched. And even then I have my reservations about the naming, it's not an autopilot.
totalZero 6y ago
Considering the fact that accidents often attract bystanders and emergency personnel to help the incapacitated driver, the inability to avoid an existing wreck in clear weather is a glaring hazard to human life. Moreover, trucks sometimes contain hazardous or flammable materials. So the answer to your question is a resounding no, in my view.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Huh, on the balance of things refusing to use such a system would cost a lot of lives.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    Only if there weren't alternative systems that were just as good and also managed to avoid this problem. Which seems unlikely.
    - brutt 6y ago
      There are. Use two or three alternative AI implementations, which will watch each other. Kind of famous "Predator" algo, but for driving. If one will fail, second will pick up. If one makes mistakes, second will teach it.

devonkim 6y ago

The other scenario is whether fully autonomous vehicles out-perform humans in sufficiently many other scenarios such that we will consider the comparatively rare scenario of an overturned truck not that big of a deal compared to the massive numbers killed due to raw human carelessness. Furthermore, autonomous vehicles will likely get better and better at driving collectively, something which I would make a heavy bet against for human drivers.

dreamcompiler 6y ago
No. For two reasons: 1. Technology should not make mind-bogglingly stupid mistakes like this, regardless of how rare they are in the grand scheme of things. 2. Because these systems use neural nets, they're black boxes and it's impossible to conduct a proper engineering analysis on them to find out when they will fail. Fuzzing the system with live humans is not engineering; it's callous disregard for human life and anybody who practices it should lose the right to call themselves an engineer.