6 ms·

The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. I can easily imagine a scenario where it might prevent 25000 crashes a year that are caused b

The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. I can easily imagine a scenario where it might prevent 25000 crashes a year that are caused because 5% of drivers are staring at their phones, have a high chance of rear-ending someone, and this software makes that far less likely. While also containing bugs causing 1000 crashes a year for the larger number of non-distracted drivers, resulting in a net change of 24000. This would mean that adding the software would be better for society, while making the majority of drivers slightly more likely to crash into someone.

ethanbond 3y ago
I’d imagine this is exactly the sort of analysis the powers NHTSA’s recommendations. They collect huge amounts of data on this stuff.
tqi 3y ago
That's true of basically any change isn't it? Even seat belts conceivably could result in some very small increase in the chance of death as a result of it being harder to escape a vehicle. Obviously the benefits far outweigh the risk, but then we are just arguing over where to draw the line.
- jojobas 3y ago
  They way you crash in terms of whether your seatbelt helps or harms doesn't depend on your life choices. Features likely benefiting drunk and distracted drivers and likely hurting aware ones are different.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I think you missed their point. It's not that most situations are improved and some get worse, it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers. A seat belt is basically the same for everyone. It makes things safer when you look at all drivers, and it makes things safer for just about any subgroup of drivers. But a buggy AEB might not fit that pattern. Imagine a system that reduces crashes by half, but then adds an extra X crashes per million miles. If someone's unassisted crash rate is 5X, then this system reduces it to 3.5X and is a great help. If someone's unassisted crash rate is .5X, then this system increases their crash rate to 1.25X and is a terrible trade.
  - CJefferson 3y ago
    Your claim seems to be the group who are not helped are "good drivers"? ... except that doesn't feel like a well-defined group to me, and also is a group that almost everyone would say that they are in.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      Insurance companies have a pretty good idea of who the "good" and "bad" drivers are. It's a question of statistics.
  - tqi 3y ago
    > it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers. I think that may be true in all cases - for example seat belts and airbags requirements may affect people differently depending on height and weight?
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Well specifically the idea is that it's so uneven it might increase the danger for certain groups, and seatbelts are pretty good overall. But bringing up airbags is a great example. If you're short enough (or possibly if you're tall enough), a standard airbag is more dangerous than nothing at all.
taeric 3y ago
No, that isn't a problem with numbers. That is a problem with letting your imagination run things. The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. If they stay flat or go up, then you have to answer why. To emphasize, for your imagination here to be relevant, the number has to do one of those. If the number goes down, even if it shifted some situations into a wreck that would not have been before, it must have done fewer of those than it moved wrecks to non-wrecks. If it somehow causes more situations to be wrecks, the number, by definition, goes up.
- omginternets 3y ago
  The question is whether anyone is actually interrogating the data in that way, not whether it can be interrogated. Large data-driven institutions are notorious for taking a narrow view of things. The problem is precisely a lack of imagination, or perhaps more accurately, critical thought. The parent is precisely engaged in the kind of interrogation that is necessary. If you are aware or an analysis that bears on his questions, now would be the time to share it.
  - taeric 3y ago
    This feels like sophistry to hinder progress. The OP is literally about studies done. Did you find problems with them? Or are you only imagining problems there could be?
    - omginternets 3y ago
      The latter, which is why the actual studies would be most welcome. But more to the point, there is a track record of narrow interpretation of studies and missing of the big picture. It’s hardly sophistry, it’s critical thought.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Is there a track record for this specific organization? Or there are a lot of publicly known tech companies that have missed the big picture?
greesil 3y ago
As someone who does ML for a living I can definitely say that false positive data from the field can significantly improve the experience for those 1000. That is what should be standardized if we wanted to see systems that work for everyone.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ethanbond 3y ago

I’d imagine this is exactly the sort of analysis the powers NHTSA’s recommendations. They collect huge amounts of data on this stuff.

tqi 3y ago

That's true of basically any change isn't it? Even seat belts conceivably could result in some very small increase in the chance of death as a result of it being harder to escape a vehicle. Obviously the benefits far outweigh the risk, but then we are just arguing over where to draw the line.

jojobas 3y ago
They way you crash in terms of whether your seatbelt helps or harms doesn't depend on your life choices. Features likely benefiting drunk and distracted drivers and likely hurting aware ones are different.
Dylan16807 3y ago
I think you missed their point. It's not that most situations are improved and some get worse, it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers. A seat belt is basically the same for everyone. It makes things safer when you look at all drivers, and it makes things safer for just about any subgroup of drivers. But a buggy AEB might not fit that pattern. Imagine a system that reduces crashes by half, but then adds an extra X crashes per million miles. If someone's unassisted crash rate is 5X, then this system reduces it to 3.5X and is a great help. If someone's unassisted crash rate is .5X, then this system increases their crash rate to 1.25X and is a terrible trade.
- CJefferson 3y ago
  Your claim seems to be the group who are not helped are "good drivers"? ... except that doesn't feel like a well-defined group to me, and also is a group that almost everyone would say that they are in.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Insurance companies have a pretty good idea of who the "good" and "bad" drivers are. It's a question of statistics.
- tqi 3y ago
  > it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers. I think that may be true in all cases - for example seat belts and airbags requirements may affect people differently depending on height and weight?
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Well specifically the idea is that it's so uneven it might increase the danger for certain groups, and seatbelts are pretty good overall. But bringing up airbags is a great example. If you're short enough (or possibly if you're tall enough), a standard airbag is more dangerous than nothing at all.

taeric 3y ago

No, that isn't a problem with numbers. That is a problem with letting your imagination run things. The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. If they stay flat or go up, then you have to answer why. To emphasize, for your imagination here to be relevant, the number has to do one of those. If the number goes down, even if it shifted some situations into a wreck that would not have been before, it must have done fewer of those than it moved wrecks to non-wrecks. If it somehow causes more situations to be wrecks, the number, by definition, goes up.

omginternets 3y ago
The question is whether anyone is actually interrogating the data in that way, not whether it can be interrogated. Large data-driven institutions are notorious for taking a narrow view of things. The problem is precisely a lack of imagination, or perhaps more accurately, critical thought. The parent is precisely engaged in the kind of interrogation that is necessary. If you are aware or an analysis that bears on his questions, now would be the time to share it.
- taeric 3y ago
  This feels like sophistry to hinder progress. The OP is literally about studies done. Did you find problems with them? Or are you only imagining problems there could be?
  - omginternets 3y ago
    The latter, which is why the actual studies would be most welcome. But more to the point, there is a track record of narrow interpretation of studies and missing of the big picture. It’s hardly sophistry, it’s critical thought.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Is there a track record for this specific organization? Or there are a lot of publicly known tech companies that have missed the big picture?

greesil 3y ago

As someone who does ML for a living I can definitely say that false positive data from the field can significantly improve the experience for those 1000. That is what should be standardized if we wanted to see systems that work for everyone.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]