3 ms·

Does not matter, because it is not a systematic failure. But when a piece of software deployed by an OEM has a problem, then it is a systematic failure where a

Does not matter, because it is not a systematic failure. But when a piece of software deployed by an OEM has a problem, then it is a systematic failure where all cars of that OEM are having the very same problem and then the OEM has to do something.

chubot 5y ago
Yeah exactly, a failure that is different than a human failure is going to be noticed, even if it's not more common. It's probably hard to intuit, and no one explicitly thinks about this (except AI engineers and researchers), but emergency vehicles are parked in a way that is "obvious" to human drivers. Every situation is different -- how much shoulder there is, etc. What the visibility is. The driver unconsciously makes a judgement call to be visible (to humans). There is no way they can judge how an AI is going to view them (which changes from time to time, and across AIs). So the only solution is for the AI to err in the same way that humans do, or not at all.
darkerside 5y ago
It doesn't excuse anything, but it does matter
- PinguTS 5y ago
  Remember when there was the case of unexpected speeding leading to accident by one OEM? It doesn't matter the question of "Oh, what was the accident rate when people where unexpectedly speeding?" What matters was that single type of car by one OEM. If that OEM has some type of problem with its cars, then its a systematic failure which needs to be investigated and resolved by that OEM.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    This belongs in the straw man Hall of Fame. The stuck accelerator is the problem and crashes are the terrible symptom. You would compare how often Toyota's accelerators stuck compared to other manufacturers in bringing a class action suit, would you not? Similarly, if the AI driver crashes in that situation in a similar (or even less) rate to the base rate (manual driving), you would likely not reasonably bring a suit. Either way you should arrive to improve the AI, but the base rate does matter, and telling someone their question does not matter because you personally don't care about it is bullshit.
    - 542354234235 5y ago
      The base rate of results doesn’t necessarily matter when you are talking about two different causes. For a stuck accelerator, you are comparing the same cause (stuck accelerator) leading to the same result (fast acceleration leading to dangerous driving conditions). You can’t compare the base rate of fast acceleration leading to dangerous driving conditions, that can happen for many reasons, including intentional driver choice, and make any meaningful conclusion. Because the base rate of an equipment failure (stuck accelerator) leading to fast acceleration, and the base rate of individual driver choice leading to fast acceleration aren’t the same thing. It is the same here. Comparing individual human choices and errors leading to striking emergency vehicles with an equipment failure (Tesla’s detection and control software) leading to striking emergency vehicles is not a comparison and it is no more an excuse to not hold Tesla accountable than it would be to not hold Toyota accountable because their accelerators stick less often than a teenager decided to mash the gas on his new car and wrecks it.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  This kind of thinking is how we got here in the first place. Edge cases that no one thought of, that no one wanted to deal with. Treating driving software like a web application that we can just fix later when the bug (i.e. a number of deaths) happen. No big deal, bro. Move fast and break things, right? We're disrupting the auto industry!
  - darkerside 5y ago
    You're arguing against ghosts. That's not what I said. If AI driving is not worse than the base rate in that specific circumstance, that would be very relevant information. FWIW, I think we're very far from ethically introducing AI driving into the mainstream.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Unless it is no more than the average, in which case it may not be a systematic failure. Which was their point I believe? A systematic failure would be striking every emergency vehicle for instance.
- PinguTS 5y ago
  A systematic failure is striking every emergency vehicles in the same circumstances. So it needs to be investigated what are the circumstances and the OEM needs to resolve the issue.
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    I get it; a computer can address these things by fixing software once. People have to be trained one at a time. This is really the glory of automated driving - once an issue is identified, it can be addressed in all the vehicles of that type simultaneously.

chubot 5y ago

Yeah exactly, a failure that is different than a human failure is going to be noticed, even if it's not more common. It's probably hard to intuit, and no one explicitly thinks about this (except AI engineers and researchers), but emergency vehicles are parked in a way that is "obvious" to human drivers. Every situation is different -- how much shoulder there is, etc. What the visibility is. The driver unconsciously makes a judgement call to be visible (to humans). There is no way they can judge how an AI is going to view them (which changes from time to time, and across AIs). So the only solution is for the AI to err in the same way that humans do, or not at all.

darkerside 5y ago

It doesn't excuse anything, but it does matter

PinguTS 5y ago
Remember when there was the case of unexpected speeding leading to accident by one OEM? It doesn't matter the question of "Oh, what was the accident rate when people where unexpectedly speeding?" What matters was that single type of car by one OEM. If that OEM has some type of problem with its cars, then its a systematic failure which needs to be investigated and resolved by that OEM.
- darkerside 5y ago
  This belongs in the straw man Hall of Fame. The stuck accelerator is the problem and crashes are the terrible symptom. You would compare how often Toyota's accelerators stuck compared to other manufacturers in bringing a class action suit, would you not? Similarly, if the AI driver crashes in that situation in a similar (or even less) rate to the base rate (manual driving), you would likely not reasonably bring a suit. Either way you should arrive to improve the AI, but the base rate does matter, and telling someone their question does not matter because you personally don't care about it is bullshit.
  - 542354234235 5y ago
    The base rate of results doesn’t necessarily matter when you are talking about two different causes. For a stuck accelerator, you are comparing the same cause (stuck accelerator) leading to the same result (fast acceleration leading to dangerous driving conditions). You can’t compare the base rate of fast acceleration leading to dangerous driving conditions, that can happen for many reasons, including intentional driver choice, and make any meaningful conclusion. Because the base rate of an equipment failure (stuck accelerator) leading to fast acceleration, and the base rate of individual driver choice leading to fast acceleration aren’t the same thing. It is the same here. Comparing individual human choices and errors leading to striking emergency vehicles with an equipment failure (Tesla’s detection and control software) leading to striking emergency vehicles is not a comparison and it is no more an excuse to not hold Tesla accountable than it would be to not hold Toyota accountable because their accelerators stick less often than a teenager decided to mash the gas on his new car and wrecks it.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
This kind of thinking is how we got here in the first place. Edge cases that no one thought of, that no one wanted to deal with. Treating driving software like a web application that we can just fix later when the bug (i.e. a number of deaths) happen. No big deal, bro. Move fast and break things, right? We're disrupting the auto industry!
- darkerside 5y ago
  You're arguing against ghosts. That's not what I said. If AI driving is not worse than the base rate in that specific circumstance, that would be very relevant information. FWIW, I think we're very far from ethically introducing AI driving into the mainstream.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

Unless it is no more than the average, in which case it may not be a systematic failure. Which was their point I believe? A systematic failure would be striking every emergency vehicle for instance.

PinguTS 5y ago
A systematic failure is striking every emergency vehicles in the same circumstances. So it needs to be investigated what are the circumstances and the OEM needs to resolve the issue.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  I get it; a computer can address these things by fixing software once. People have to be trained one at a time. This is really the glory of automated driving - once an issue is identified, it can be addressed in all the vehicles of that type simultaneously.