4 ms·
Plus the knowledge and intuition that, for example Firetruck >_____________< Fire Hydrant Something that looks flat but is actually a fire hose means you shou
by jvm___ 3y ago
Plus the knowledge and intuition that, for example
Firetruck >_____________< Fire Hydrant
Something that looks flat but is actually a fire hose means you should stop instead of driving over it - this was actually issue in Phoenix(?)
A homeless lady was killed by a self-driving car. She was walking a loaded bicycle, at 2am, on a road that doesn't usually have pedestrians. The self-driving car couldn't decide if she was a bike or a human so it didn't brake and the human-driver backup had zoned out as the car had made 99.99% of the correct decisions.
A self-driving car is like a jigsaw puzzle - there's one way to do it right, and infinite ways for it to be completely or subtly wrong.
"What do you see" and "What does it mean"
Humans and cameras have the same "What do you see" input, but the "What does it mean" category hasn't been conquered by cars.
- bluGill 3y agoHumans haven't mastered that either. The question is which is statistically better, not which is perfect.
- autoexec 3y agoIf a human screws up while driving and they end up in a wheelchair they have no one but themselves to blame, but if software puts someone in a wheelchair who otherwise wouldn't have been that person isn't going to care about "statistically better". They shouldn't care either. If carmakers want to take control away from a person, they had better do at least as well the person would 100% of the time.
- bluGill 3y agoI lost a good friend who was hit by a car while he was walking. Your entire argument is wrong because of That situation.
- autoexec 3y agoIt's not as if pedestrians are any safer. A self driving car that hits a person because it gets confused where a human wouldn't have is just as bad. When lives are on the line, taking control from the human requires that the machine must be at least good as the human would be in every situation or we're better off leaving humans in control with machines augmenting their abilities. It's great that we have cars that can warn us when there's something in our blind spot, something behind us while we back up, or when we drift out of our lane. Until the software can perform as well as we can, any more than that is a liability.
- bluGill 3y ago> machine must be at least good as the human would be in every situation or we're better off leaving humans in control with machines augmenting their abilities. That isn't quite right. There can be situations where the human is better, so long as in the majority of situations the machine is better. This is why I said it is a statistical question. I'm not demanding perfection, I'm asking for better than humans overall. Of course if the machine knows it is in a situation where it isn't as good it is fine to make the human drive.