3 ms·

I put more of the blame on a related but slightly different principle, fake it till you make it. The subject matter makes a huge difference in how bad that appr

by rurp 4y ago

I put more of the blame on a related but slightly different principle, fake it till you make it. The subject matter makes a huge difference in how bad that approach is. Falsely claiming that an app uses AI to identify if a picture is a hot dog or not is dishonest, but not the end of the world. Lying about a medical test being valid, or that a car is fully self driving, is a whole other thing. Those lies directly result in people being killed and should not be tolerated.

programmarchy 4y ago
Agree that “fake it till you make it” is a good distinction to make. It’s also been glorified e.g. do things that don’t scale. But technically, Tesla is “fully self driving” in the sense that it can autonomously navigate, steer, etc. That doesn’t mean it won’t crash. It’s also still in Beta. In the long run, I think FSD will become better than the majority of human drivers. Seemingly, the only way these remaining edge cases can be solved is by collecting more training data from real world driving scenarios. So the NTSB is faced with the difficult decision of allowing this Beta version to crash and even cause fatalities in the short run, betting on the prediction it will drastically improve road safety in the long run. It’s a complicated dilemma, in my opinion.
- thworp 4y ago
  > In the long run, I think FSD will become better than the majority of human drivers. You fell for a very common misuse of statistics there. It may become better than the average human driver, but the sample for that average includes the 5-10% of drivers who cause almost all accidents. Like for other things where power laws apply using averages (or medians) on that data essentially removes any information.
  - programmarchy 4y ago
    I said majority, not average, although what I really meant was anyone who is not a professional driver. But seems like you’re making a stronger argument for my point than I am for putting FSD Beta on the road to replace that 5-10% of bad drivers even sooner.

by rurp 4y ago

programmarchy 4y ago

Agree that “fake it till you make it” is a good distinction to make. It’s also been glorified e.g. do things that don’t scale. But technically, Tesla is “fully self driving” in the sense that it can autonomously navigate, steer, etc. That doesn’t mean it won’t crash. It’s also still in Beta. In the long run, I think FSD will become better than the majority of human drivers. Seemingly, the only way these remaining edge cases can be solved is by collecting more training data from real world driving scenarios. So the NTSB is faced with the difficult decision of allowing this Beta version to crash and even cause fatalities in the short run, betting on the prediction it will drastically improve road safety in the long run. It’s a complicated dilemma, in my opinion.

thworp 4y ago
> In the long run, I think FSD will become better than the majority of human drivers. You fell for a very common misuse of statistics there. It may become better than the average human driver, but the sample for that average includes the 5-10% of drivers who cause almost all accidents. Like for other things where power laws apply using averages (or medians) on that data essentially removes any information.
- programmarchy 4y ago
  I said majority, not average, although what I really meant was anyone who is not a professional driver. But seems like you’re making a stronger argument for my point than I am for putting FSD Beta on the road to replace that 5-10% of bad drivers even sooner.