4 ms·

It's pretty much the other way around (1% done, 99% to go) except for contrived locations that have perfect climates. It's like wifi devices claiming they can w

It's pretty much the other way around (1% done, 99% to go) except for contrived locations that have perfect climates. It's like wifi devices claiming they can work over miles but that's only true if you have line of sight. A long term snow covering of lane markings typical for the winter months of much of north america and the emergent driving lanes people flock to cannot be handled by any existing driving AI. The places people drive are wrong according to absolute road positions and the relative markers are obscured to both human and machine. Unless car AIs can do the wrong thing like all the humans will in those situations it won't work. And that's a hard problem.

Arnt 5y ago
Aren't you then saying that people from California or Arizona who come to Norway know 1% of what they need in order to drive? I don't know anyone from Arizona, but the Californians I've known adapted quickly.
- azinman2 5y ago
  That’s because they’re humans. And also, even those humans who aren’t used to certain conditions will have a difficult time.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    You're saying that for humans it requires perhaps 30% additional learning effort but for computers 9900%, and I'm supposed to accept the 30/9900 discrepancy because… what? When I learned to drive a car, I lived with an uphill driveway in a town whose winter climate varies by the hour. It's quite normal there to get temperatures around zero, some rain, then the temperature drops and 20cm snow fall. So on a January morning I often had to start the car uphill on steel ice covered with water and snow. With a sharp curve as a bonus. That kind of start isn't the simplst, and you could persuade me that that kind of thing is as difficult as navigating an intersection with ~10 other cars, cyclists and pedestrians. But not that it's tens of times as difficult.
    - nextaccountic 5y ago
      Humans generalize what they learn extremely well. Humans also spent their whole life learning how to navigate their environment, and this is transferable to a range of activities.
      - Arnt 5y ago
        Yes, that's what I think too. I just don't see a reason why driving skills should not be largely transferable. Being able to drive in California doesn't include all the skills needed for e.g. winter driving in Norway, or for driving in an Indian city, or (list goes on), but I fail to see that it's just 1% (as an upstream poster claimed) or even close to 1%. I fail to see that driving skills are 99% intransferable. I also fail to see that while the skills are transferable for humans, they are intransferable for computers. Various people in the thread assert so, but argument by repeated assertion is meh.
        nextaccountic 5y ago
        > I also fail to see that while the skills are transferable for humans, they are intransferable for computers. Various people in the thread assert so, but argument by repeated assertion is meh. That they are nontransferable is the null hypothesis. I mean, we need evidence for this transfer. It's up for self-driving companies to produce this evidence. But they didn't, unfortunately.
        Arnt 5y ago
        That they are nontransferable and 99 times as diffcult is not any kind of null hypothesis. That's just a nasty rhetorical trick: Take something reasonable, piggyback something ridiculous onto it, and argue that the reasonable thing is reasonable.
        nextaccountic 5y ago
        I didn't say it's 99 times as difficult

Arnt 5y ago

Aren't you then saying that people from California or Arizona who come to Norway know 1% of what they need in order to drive? I don't know anyone from Arizona, but the Californians I've known adapted quickly.

azinman2 5y ago
That’s because they’re humans. And also, even those humans who aren’t used to certain conditions will have a difficult time.
- Arnt 5y ago
  You're saying that for humans it requires perhaps 30% additional learning effort but for computers 9900%, and I'm supposed to accept the 30/9900 discrepancy because… what? When I learned to drive a car, I lived with an uphill driveway in a town whose winter climate varies by the hour. It's quite normal there to get temperatures around zero, some rain, then the temperature drops and 20cm snow fall. So on a January morning I often had to start the car uphill on steel ice covered with water and snow. With a sharp curve as a bonus. That kind of start isn't the simplst, and you could persuade me that that kind of thing is as difficult as navigating an intersection with ~10 other cars, cyclists and pedestrians. But not that it's tens of times as difficult.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    Humans generalize what they learn extremely well. Humans also spent their whole life learning how to navigate their environment, and this is transferable to a range of activities.
    - Arnt 5y ago
      Yes, that's what I think too. I just don't see a reason why driving skills should not be largely transferable. Being able to drive in California doesn't include all the skills needed for e.g. winter driving in Norway, or for driving in an Indian city, or (list goes on), but I fail to see that it's just 1% (as an upstream poster claimed) or even close to 1%. I fail to see that driving skills are 99% intransferable. I also fail to see that while the skills are transferable for humans, they are intransferable for computers. Various people in the thread assert so, but argument by repeated assertion is meh.
      - nextaccountic 5y ago
        > I also fail to see that while the skills are transferable for humans, they are intransferable for computers. Various people in the thread assert so, but argument by repeated assertion is meh. That they are nontransferable is the null hypothesis. I mean, we need evidence for this transfer. It's up for self-driving companies to produce this evidence. But they didn't, unfortunately.
        Arnt 5y ago
        That they are nontransferable and 99 times as diffcult is not any kind of null hypothesis. That's just a nasty rhetorical trick: Take something reasonable, piggyback something ridiculous onto it, and argue that the reasonable thing is reasonable.
        nextaccountic 5y ago
        I didn't say it's 99 times as difficult