5 ms·
It’s probably easy (in terms scale of all that detection) to fix, and for what it’s worth, this feature can definitely be a lifesaver.
by NaughtyShiba 4y ago
It’s probably easy (in terms scale of all that detection) to fix, and for what it’s worth, this feature can definitely be a lifesaver.
- jeffreygoesto 4y agoIt isn't. They hit the ROC like every other classifier on the tails.
- fasthands9 4y agoI am very curious if they did assessment of other situations which could trigger similar sensor reactions that they had to rule out. Theme parks could actually be geofenced off without not that much work - there are under 1000 roller coasters in the US. Did they have to consider people dropping phones out of car windows (or off a boat ?) What about ski crashes or skateboard crashes?
- NaughtyShiba 4y agoHard to answer. However it’s also probably hard to come up with all the edge cases.
- mdaniel 4y ago> Theme parks could actually be geofenced off without not that much work - there are under 1000 roller coasters in the US. I'm cognizant of the 80/20 rule, and "perfect is the enemy of good," but if a run-of-the-mill coaster is setting off that detection, then I'd wager the traveling fair rides will be even more violent, based on my experiences growing up I have no idea where this falls on the privacy spectrum, but I'd guess if there are 5 or 10 triggering events within some timespan and some geo boundary, that's an indicator of a themepark-ish setup Clicking "report false positive" on the phone would also likely go a long way
- NobodyNada 4y agoThere was an article a couple weeks ago about the feature triggering when someone's iPhone fell off his motorcycle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32968229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32968229
- MBCook 4y agoTo be fair it didn’t fall off a motorcycle. It was thrown (due to a hard bump) from a moving motorcycle. If it had been in the person’s pocket at the time because they had fallen off too, calling 911 would have been very fitting.
- fasthands9 4y agoI guess the question to me is what the final false positive rate on this feature is. Its obviously a huge net win if the proportion is small - but if it is high enough I'd imagine that dispatchers would be less likely to want to send officers to the automated calls.
- bpeebles 4y agoThere are traveling carnivals to things like state/county fairs, as well as just big empty parking lots of malls/etc for a few weeks, with significant g-force rides. So well over a thousand locations in the US.
- Tempest1981 4y agoOr NFL quarterbacks!
- postalrat 4y agoIt could also be a life-taker when it calls 911 and takes resources that could have been used for saving a life.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoyep. It's the hubris of tech people to think everything can be solved (or made better) with technology.
- tomcam 4y agoLet me try playing devil's advocate (with zero inside info). Isn't it possible that more lives are saved such that it's worth the false alarms? It is obvious to me that these decisions will become more and more difficult. I am certain that at some point (not sure if 10 years from now or 50) driverless tech will be safer than people--by a margin of say 99%. I am equally certain that this will be accompanied by a set of accidents unique to the driverless tech. I think of it as similar to compilers. When I started programming PCs assembly was always king. C got better and better. 10 years into my career C was mostly better. Now C/C++/Rust etc. almost never need code rewritten in ASM.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoDriverless vehicles don't go on rollercoasters, if they want to automatically phone in an emergency call they'll probably be able to do so reliably. a phone in your pocket does not have that context.
- NaughtyShiba 4y agoAren’t new cars supposed to have that feature, which can automatically call emergency services on crash?
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoI would imagine so, but my newest vehicle is 2004 so I have no firsthand experience :)