2 ms·
If one doesn't need any training to avoid hitting stationary objects, why do so many human drivers hit stationary objects? I can see arguments that the program
by Arnt 6y ago
If one doesn't need any training to avoid hitting stationary objects, why do so many human drivers hit stationary objects? I can see arguments that the program shouldn't hit stationary arguments, but the ones I see apply to humans too with only minor changes.
Is there a relevant difference between what's "training" for an CPU driver and what's training for a human driver, and if so, what?
- gpm 6y agoHumans have failure modes computers don't. Falling asleep. Distracting phone call. Distracting naked person dancing in the window. Computers have problems humans don't too of course... that's why we get these articles about "ridiculous crash happened".
- thaumasiotes 6y agoYes, computers have problems that humans don't. But this isn't one of them. This is a problem that humans don't have, and that computers also don't have. (Or rather, a problem that humans do not have trouble telling computers how to solve.)
- Arnt 6y agoYes, yes, humans have failure modes that computers don't, and those failure modes do lead to some problems. That's not relevant. I repeat myself: "I can see arguments that the program shouldn't hit stationary arguments, but the ones I see apply to humans too with only minor changes." That humans have extra problems doesn't really matter, so long as humans require training to cope with those problems that are similar to those computers have. For example, computers may use a vision device that sweeps across the surroundings and then use lots of postprocessing to build a complete scene. That's similar to what the human eye and brain do, except for the details of how the sweeping sweeps and how the postprocessing puts together a picture.