4 ms·

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,

by 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
  - azinman2 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? Because AI is not even remotely close to “solved”, and driving is a combination of a million edge conditions, social knowledge and communication, common sense knowledge, vision understanding, planning, and force feedback adjustment. What’s unclear to me is why you’d expect these things to be so easy. To even say “for computers” doesn’t seem to recognize this isn’t just about executing basic math, but is rather trying to represent intelligence. There is no single computer here, these are implementations of ML models, which are each unique with their own architecture, parameter space, and capabilities.
  - qeternity 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? Have you noticed how a small child will learn to identify things like cats and birds after only seeing a few examples? But computers need orders of magnitude more data and instruction. Anyone who doesn’t understand how modern day deep learning works really ought to do an intro course.

by Arnt 5y ago

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
- azinman2 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? Because AI is not even remotely close to “solved”, and driving is a combination of a million edge conditions, social knowledge and communication, common sense knowledge, vision understanding, planning, and force feedback adjustment. What’s unclear to me is why you’d expect these things to be so easy. To even say “for computers” doesn’t seem to recognize this isn’t just about executing basic math, but is rather trying to represent intelligence. There is no single computer here, these are implementations of ML models, which are each unique with their own architecture, parameter space, and capabilities.
- qeternity 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? Have you noticed how a small child will learn to identify things like cats and birds after only seeing a few examples? But computers need orders of magnitude more data and instruction. Anyone who doesn’t understand how modern day deep learning works really ought to do an intro course.