6 ms·

It's hard to believe or every single driver would get the same consequences. This reminds me of drivers who complain about speeding tickets right after the spee

It's hard to believe or every single driver would get the same consequences. This reminds me of drivers who complain about speeding tickets right after the speed limit changed. Well, slow down before the speed limit changes and you'll be fine. Some people just have bad habits without realising.

laumars 5y ago
This comment reminds me of a, thankfully small, subset of developers who believe their code is infallible and it must be the users fault if the application has bugs. What the AI is attempting to solve is a complex problem. I’m willing to give the drivers here the benefit of the doubt ;)
- exporectomy 5y ago
  This comment reminds me of a, thankfully small, subset of drivers who believe their driving is infallible and it must be the other drivers' fault if they're penalized. What the driver is attempting to do is a complex task. I’m willing to give the AI here the benefit of the doubt ;)
  - laumars 5y ago
    You clearly didn’t read the article then. The drivers are open to dialog. It’s the maintainers of the software and/or Amazon who are assuming the system is perfect. I’ve worked on smart interfaces for cars by the way. My experience not only as a driver but also as a developer in this space tells me that AI described in the article needs further development and your presumptions in this discussion are BS.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      You're missing the point. If the AI is consistently penalizing drivers for looking in the mirror, then it'll affect them all equally and not be unfair. If it treats some drivers worse than others, why didn't they mention that instead of leaving us to assume that there really are drivers who are never penalized for looking in the mirror? TFA even points out drivers making excuses for not wearing a seatbelt. If they won't even take personal responsibility for their own illegal actions, of course their opinions on more subtle things like following distances aren't reliable.
      - laumars 5y ago
        > You're missing the point. If the AI is consistently penalizing drivers for looking in the mirror, then it'll affect them all equally and not be unfair. If it treats some drivers worse than others, why didn't they mention that instead of leaving us to assume that there really are drivers who are never penalized for looking in the mirror? They did mention it: not every driver has the AI installed. Also you’re assuming the bonuses are awarded like prizes to the top performers. So if everyone is penalised equally then the same people still get awards. My impression was those bonuses were awarded to anyone who passes specific milestones. So even if everyone is penalised equally it’s still unfair to everyone. > TFA even points out drivers making excuses for not wearing a seatbelt. If they won't even take personal responsibility for their own illegal actions, of course their opinions on more subtle things like following distances aren't reliable. Yes, that is a fair argument. I interpreted that in a more charitable way saying “they’re acknowledging some bad practices on their side so at least trying to meet the AI developers half way”. But I will admit your interpretation is just as, if not more so, plausible. Even so, that doesn’t justify being ignored to by Amazon and the AI developers. Any new tech needs debugging in the field. And this is more so true with AI and complex problems like driving assistants than it is in most other software specialties. That’s the part of the article that stinks the most and the original point I was making yesterday. I couldn’t give a rats ass who is to blame because the biggest fault lies with the company for not working with the users to ensure the software is performing correctly. And this is especially important when people’s income are being directly effected by the software too!
        exporectomy 5y ago
        Yea not excusing Amazon ignoring their requests or blindly using AI results to decide compensation, or that it can encourage dangerous driving to get points, or that it's probably inaccurate. Overall awful, but might be a fun game if you didn't depend on the job for your livelihood.
Cipater 5y ago
“When I get my score each week, I ask my company to tell me what I did wrong,” the driver told Motherboard. “My [delivery company] will email Amazon and cc' me, and say, ‘Hey we have [drivers] who'd like to see the photos flagged as events, but they don't respond. There's no room for discussion around the possibility that maybe the camera's data isn't clean.” You should interview at Netradyne. From your comment you seem like a good fit.
mcv 5y ago
Automatically analysing safe traffic behaviour from a camera is a hard problem. From the article, it sounds like this system is incredibly naive and doesn't really understand real world traffic situations, so it ends up punishing people for doing the right thing while demanding they do the wrong thing (like not looking in the mirror), and on top of that, distracting them and adding extra stress. It sounds like a system that needs to be banned or thoroughly regulated. Naive driver distraction systems like this do not make traffic safer. The company should prove that this system is safe just like autopilot manufacturers have to.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  I'm talking about the unfairness, not safety. The article doesn't say that some drivers are allowed to do it while others aren't but still presents the whole thing as unfair.
  - mcv 5y ago
    Sure, but I'm talking about safety. And safety is also an important issue. And one that's at least as much subject to regulation. And regulating this infringement on driving safety would also help with the unfairness, even if it doesn't address it directly. Of course the unfairness is also a valid concern, and I'd love to see them both addressed.

laumars 5y ago

This comment reminds me of a, thankfully small, subset of developers who believe their code is infallible and it must be the users fault if the application has bugs. What the AI is attempting to solve is a complex problem. I’m willing to give the drivers here the benefit of the doubt ;)

exporectomy 5y ago
This comment reminds me of a, thankfully small, subset of drivers who believe their driving is infallible and it must be the other drivers' fault if they're penalized. What the driver is attempting to do is a complex task. I’m willing to give the AI here the benefit of the doubt ;)
- laumars 5y ago
  You clearly didn’t read the article then. The drivers are open to dialog. It’s the maintainers of the software and/or Amazon who are assuming the system is perfect. I’ve worked on smart interfaces for cars by the way. My experience not only as a driver but also as a developer in this space tells me that AI described in the article needs further development and your presumptions in this discussion are BS.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    You're missing the point. If the AI is consistently penalizing drivers for looking in the mirror, then it'll affect them all equally and not be unfair. If it treats some drivers worse than others, why didn't they mention that instead of leaving us to assume that there really are drivers who are never penalized for looking in the mirror? TFA even points out drivers making excuses for not wearing a seatbelt. If they won't even take personal responsibility for their own illegal actions, of course their opinions on more subtle things like following distances aren't reliable.
    - laumars 5y ago
      > You're missing the point. If the AI is consistently penalizing drivers for looking in the mirror, then it'll affect them all equally and not be unfair. If it treats some drivers worse than others, why didn't they mention that instead of leaving us to assume that there really are drivers who are never penalized for looking in the mirror? They did mention it: not every driver has the AI installed. Also you’re assuming the bonuses are awarded like prizes to the top performers. So if everyone is penalised equally then the same people still get awards. My impression was those bonuses were awarded to anyone who passes specific milestones. So even if everyone is penalised equally it’s still unfair to everyone. > TFA even points out drivers making excuses for not wearing a seatbelt. If they won't even take personal responsibility for their own illegal actions, of course their opinions on more subtle things like following distances aren't reliable. Yes, that is a fair argument. I interpreted that in a more charitable way saying “they’re acknowledging some bad practices on their side so at least trying to meet the AI developers half way”. But I will admit your interpretation is just as, if not more so, plausible. Even so, that doesn’t justify being ignored to by Amazon and the AI developers. Any new tech needs debugging in the field. And this is more so true with AI and complex problems like driving assistants than it is in most other software specialties. That’s the part of the article that stinks the most and the original point I was making yesterday. I couldn’t give a rats ass who is to blame because the biggest fault lies with the company for not working with the users to ensure the software is performing correctly. And this is especially important when people’s income are being directly effected by the software too!
      - exporectomy 5y ago
        Yea not excusing Amazon ignoring their requests or blindly using AI results to decide compensation, or that it can encourage dangerous driving to get points, or that it's probably inaccurate. Overall awful, but might be a fun game if you didn't depend on the job for your livelihood.

Cipater 5y ago

“When I get my score each week, I ask my company to tell me what I did wrong,” the driver told Motherboard. “My [delivery company] will email Amazon and cc' me, and say, ‘Hey we have [drivers] who'd like to see the photos flagged as events, but they don't respond. There's no room for discussion around the possibility that maybe the camera's data isn't clean.” You should interview at Netradyne. From your comment you seem like a good fit.

mcv 5y ago

Automatically analysing safe traffic behaviour from a camera is a hard problem. From the article, it sounds like this system is incredibly naive and doesn't really understand real world traffic situations, so it ends up punishing people for doing the right thing while demanding they do the wrong thing (like not looking in the mirror), and on top of that, distracting them and adding extra stress. It sounds like a system that needs to be banned or thoroughly regulated. Naive driver distraction systems like this do not make traffic safer. The company should prove that this system is safe just like autopilot manufacturers have to.

exporectomy 5y ago
I'm talking about the unfairness, not safety. The article doesn't say that some drivers are allowed to do it while others aren't but still presents the whole thing as unfair.
- mcv 5y ago
  Sure, but I'm talking about safety. And safety is also an important issue. And one that's at least as much subject to regulation. And regulating this infringement on driving safety would also help with the unfairness, even if it doesn't address it directly. Of course the unfairness is also a valid concern, and I'd love to see them both addressed.