4 ms·

> You shouldn't, there is no AI capable of doing better than a human, and there does not appear to be any currently known method of creating one. I don’t care

by paulgb 4y ago

> You shouldn't, there is no AI capable of doing better than a human, and there does not appear to be any currently known method of creating one. I don’t care that much if it’s better than the best driver, I care if it’s better than the driver checking their phone, blowing through stop signs, etc. As a cyclist, I reckon that it’s the most selfish 10% of drivers that represent 90% of the risk; if they’re replaced by self-driving I’d feel safer even if it also means the good drivers aren’t quite as good.

bayindirh 4y ago
The ones which are not checking their phones can't detect semis or cyclists for quite some time. So You're replacing the 10% with their electronic versions.
sandworm101 4y ago
But if AI can be better than humans at driving a car, then it can also be better than you at driving a bicycle. Will you accept AI-augmented tools on your bike? I see automatic braking and speed limiters as very easy first steps. Then geofencing to prevent bicycles on pedestrian paths. All of that is dead simple with curret tech.
- pasabagi 4y ago
  Bicyles aren't very dangerous. Cars, on the other hand, are a leading cause of death in basically every country on earth.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    Yeah, you only have a ~seven times higher rate of death per mile traveled as compared to a car. It’s just there are significantly more car miles traveled so more car related deaths. statistics…
    - pasabagi 4y ago
      ... 'death rate', as in, the cyclist is killed by a car.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Check your stats. In most of the largest countries (India, China, Russia etc) buses are actually more dangerous than cars. One bus crash can be more dangerous than dozens of car crashes. And my phone just had a weather alert. -35c tomorrow, possible -50c with wind chill. I'm sure I'll see not a single bicycle ... but definitely a few snow mobiles. They are ridiculously dangerous and polluting, but at least they aren't cars.
    - pasabagi 4y ago
      I would imagine that a very large portion of all deadly crashes (buses included) involve a car. Cars are pretty safe for their drivers; they are just very dangerous for everybody else. So, if you split 'passenger deaths' by 'vehicle category' you're going to have a lot of situations where a car hits a bus/cyclist/pedestrian, the driver survives, and whoever they hit does not. This creates misleading statistics.
logifail 4y ago
> I care if it’s better than the driver checking their phone, blowing through stop signs, etc. As a cyclist, I reckon that it’s the most selfish 10% of drivers that represent 90% of the risk We have a(n imperfect) mechanism to catch and penalise those drivers. An ex-colleague of mine was incapable of sticking to the speed limit (she drove me round Paris once, that was an exciting ride...). Eventually she collected enough speeding tickets [in the UK] that she was within one ticket of losing her driving licence completely. At that point, she [finally!] slowed down. Q: What's our proposed mechanism for detecting errors made by AI "drivers" and enforcing improvement?
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > What's our proposed mechanism for detecting errors made by AI "drivers" and enforcing improvement? Lawsuits by the families of the fallen? Have be a big lawsuits though — an 80 year old taken out by a robocar is just “the cost of doing business” so there would have to be multiple school busses on fire to make a dent.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > Lawsuits by the families of the fallen? Umm, maybe. Except we all know that that's a truly terrible way to persuade corporations (with deep pockets, lots of lawyers, and even more lobbyists) to do the right thing, isn't it?
ars 4y ago
I didn't say "best driver" I said better than a human - even an average human. I'll copy/paste something I wrote before: The computer would have to be 99.99999% reliable to simply match humans. The accident rate is around 74 per 100 million miles (and fatalities is 1.13). It's unclear exactly how to turn that into a percentage, but no matter how you do it it's quite high. Say an accident takes 5 minutes, and people drive 30 miles/hour. Then that works out to 99.999% for humans. If you use the numbers for fatalities then it's 99.99999%. I.e. 99.99999% of the time, as whole across all [US] humans, people drive in a way that does not cause a fatality. Do you know any computers that can simply run with 5 9's of reliability? Never mind actually do something complicated?

by paulgb 4y ago

bayindirh 4y ago

The ones which are not checking their phones can't detect semis or cyclists for quite some time. So You're replacing the 10% with their electronic versions.

sandworm101 4y ago

But if AI can be better than humans at driving a car, then it can also be better than you at driving a bicycle. Will you accept AI-augmented tools on your bike? I see automatic braking and speed limiters as very easy first steps. Then geofencing to prevent bicycles on pedestrian paths. All of that is dead simple with curret tech.

pasabagi 4y ago
Bicyles aren't very dangerous. Cars, on the other hand, are a leading cause of death in basically every country on earth.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  Yeah, you only have a ~seven times higher rate of death per mile traveled as compared to a car. It’s just there are significantly more car miles traveled so more car related deaths. statistics…
  - pasabagi 4y ago
    ... 'death rate', as in, the cyclist is killed by a car.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Check your stats. In most of the largest countries (India, China, Russia etc) buses are actually more dangerous than cars. One bus crash can be more dangerous than dozens of car crashes. And my phone just had a weather alert. -35c tomorrow, possible -50c with wind chill. I'm sure I'll see not a single bicycle ... but definitely a few snow mobiles. They are ridiculously dangerous and polluting, but at least they aren't cars.
  - pasabagi 4y ago
    I would imagine that a very large portion of all deadly crashes (buses included) involve a car. Cars are pretty safe for their drivers; they are just very dangerous for everybody else. So, if you split 'passenger deaths' by 'vehicle category' you're going to have a lot of situations where a car hits a bus/cyclist/pedestrian, the driver survives, and whoever they hit does not. This creates misleading statistics.

logifail 4y ago

> I care if it’s better than the driver checking their phone, blowing through stop signs, etc. As a cyclist, I reckon that it’s the most selfish 10% of drivers that represent 90% of the risk We have a(n imperfect) mechanism to catch and penalise those drivers. An ex-colleague of mine was incapable of sticking to the speed limit (she drove me round Paris once, that was an exciting ride...). Eventually she collected enough speeding tickets [in the UK] that she was within one ticket of losing her driving licence completely. At that point, she [finally!] slowed down. Q: What's our proposed mechanism for detecting errors made by AI "drivers" and enforcing improvement?

UncleEntity 4y ago
> What's our proposed mechanism for detecting errors made by AI "drivers" and enforcing improvement? Lawsuits by the families of the fallen? Have be a big lawsuits though — an 80 year old taken out by a robocar is just “the cost of doing business” so there would have to be multiple school busses on fire to make a dent.
- logifail 4y ago
  > Lawsuits by the families of the fallen? Umm, maybe. Except we all know that that's a truly terrible way to persuade corporations (with deep pockets, lots of lawyers, and even more lobbyists) to do the right thing, isn't it?

ars 4y ago

I didn't say "best driver" I said better than a human - even an average human. I'll copy/paste something I wrote before: The computer would have to be 99.99999% reliable to simply match humans. The accident rate is around 74 per 100 million miles (and fatalities is 1.13). It's unclear exactly how to turn that into a percentage, but no matter how you do it it's quite high. Say an accident takes 5 minutes, and people drive 30 miles/hour. Then that works out to 99.999% for humans. If you use the numbers for fatalities then it's 99.99999%. I.e. 99.99999% of the time, as whole across all [US] humans, people drive in a way that does not cause a fatality. Do you know any computers that can simply run with 5 9's of reliability? Never mind actually do something complicated?