9 ms·

I'm wary about using public roads to test these, but I think the way the data is presented is misleading. I'm not sure how it's misleading, but separating "inci

I'm wary about using public roads to test these, but I think the way the data is presented is misleading. I'm not sure how it's misleading, but separating "incidents" into categories (safety, traffic, accident, etc) might be a good start. For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket. While that's an inconvenience to other drivers, it's not a safety issue at all. By the way, as a motorcyclist (and thus hyper annoyed at bad driving), I find Uber/Lyft/Food drivers to be both much more dangerous and inconveniencing than these self driving cars. We should have scrutiny on the safety of these machines, but they're hardly the biggest problem facing SF.

notakio 3y ago
I moved out of SF ~2018, and only recently revisited, and the increased frequency with which I saw robocars was immediately concerning to me, largely based on the potential for things to go wrong, and with just how frequent they were. My second thought was, after hearing friends and family still there echo nothing for disdain for them, "how long before someone starts setting these on fire?" as some sort of nuisance campaign against the things. Turns out, 1) you don't need fire, and 2) not that long, since the cone thing started happening about a week afterwards.
- standardUser 3y ago
  I know this is a tired argument, but it's not wrong: There is equal or greater cause for concern with cars driven by people, we're just used to those horrors and reluctant to trade them for a different set of horrors, even if they are conclusively less horrible. I lived carless in downtown SF for 10 years, usually with a walking commute, and it was not pleasant. Packed streets full of angry, stressed drivers honking and swerving and practically revving their engines as lights change so they can gun it past cyclists and pedestrians down the next narrow street. Anyone trying to replace these agro drivers with marginally-safer robots has my support.
  - more_corn 3y ago
    Uber performed self driving car tests in downtown San Francisco for a bit. I personally saw an error where self driving cars turning right on red failed to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk who had right of way. It was a bug. The driver looped and tried again while I was standing there and it happened again. It was an incident. It was a safety incident. Getting killed by a robot breaking the rules is no less dead than if it were a human. And there’s no comfort in the thought that it might happen less often with a robot driving. Your argument that human drivers suck commits the fallacy of whataboutism. Your argument that not all incidents are safety incidents is misleading. There are safety incidents they’re unacceptable.
    - ameister14 3y ago
      It doesn't commit the fallacy of whataboutism - it's the same issue and a direct substitute. Any safety incident is unacceptable is not a realistic standard, and I am not sure why a lower rate of incident is not a convincing argument for you. Yes, getting killed by a robot leaves you no less dead, but if 5 people are killed by robots where 10 people would have been killed by people, isn't that a net positive?
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        If 10 people were killed by people, then there could be 10 wrongful-death lawsuits and 10 car insurance claims and 10 cases of liability and 10 criminal investigations and 10 driver's licenses sanctioned, where each and every human behind the wheel must accept responsibility and assume liability for the harm caused to other human beings, and/or property. If 5 people are killed by SDCs, then 5 executors will need to visit our website, create an account, and submit a request for reimbursement for funeral expenses. Please upload your death certificate and all itemized receipts. Our best AI will absolutely make its best efforts to find out which remote human operator caused those cars to begin driving, and then we will launch an internal investigation into whether their pay should be cut, or maybe we'll put them on paid leave instead and connect them with a grief counselor. Thank you for choosing WayMo. Scan this QR code to install our app!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
paxys 3y ago
> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path. It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic, and that should not be excused as "oh it's just learning". Self driving car companies love to release reports comparing themselves against regular drivers when it comes to collisions and deaths, but conveniently skip over every other aspect of driving. The way things are today, if we continue to release more and more of them into San Francisco it will basically lead up to a total traffic deadlock, and yet people will still keep repeating "oh but they kill 0.1 fewer people per million miles so it's an improvement".
- veec_cas_tant 3y ago
  > And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path Are you considering someone putting a traffic cone on a vehicle a day-to-day situation?
  - paxys 3y ago
    What would you do if you were stopped at an intersection and someone put a traffic cone in front of you? Sit there for the rest of your life blocking everyone behind you, or move it/drive around it? Same for literally every example that deviates from the happy path, no matter how minor. Construction work, something fallen on the road, a delivery van stopped on the side, temporary street closures. These cars are nowhere close to being intelligent enough to handle city driving, and won't be for a very long time.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      I like that you’re getting downvoted but actually being able to react to these situations is a good skill to have.
    - brigade 3y ago
Animats 3y ago
> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket. Google could get tough about that. If you have Google Play Services on your phone, they know who you are. "Your Google account has been terminated for violation of Google's terms of service."
akira2501 3y ago
> I'm not sure how it's misleading, but separating "incidents" into categories The premise is that these vehicles would be unilaterally "better" than human drivers and that would justify their creation and use. If that's not the case, then perhaps we need to fully reevaluate the value proposition here. > While that's an inconvenience to other drivers, it's not a safety issue at all. It hasn't proved to be a safety issue _yet_. We don't actually have enough data to forecast with here. I see this as a safety signal with troubling implications. > as a motorcyclist (and thus hyper annoyed at bad driving) This is another safety signal I would be wary of... unless "hyper annoyed" is just hyperbole for it's own sake. > We should have scrutiny on the safety of these machines, but they're hardly the biggest problem facing SF. The problem with automation is small problems have a tendency to combine into massive emergent problems once you start scaling your fleet up.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  > The problem with automation is small problems have a tendency to combine into massive emergent problems once you start scaling your fleet up. Not in this case, no. Every driver has a small problem. Each ai driver is just another driver, replacing some driver. Unless the ai driver problem is not small but actually quite big, I don't see how automation economics would worsen the situation. On the contrary, them all being identical and automated makes fixing the small problems much more viable.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    Except Humans are dynamic and the AI is pre-programmed. So Humans can _react_ to emergent conditions whereas AI is completely subsumed by it. There's a good hint here that when Waymo cars "break down" a remote Human operator takes over. If your view is correct, this could never work.
    - jstummbillig 3y ago
      In light of whats happening right this moment with AI/GPTs, I am not sure if you are being ironic or not. If so, well played.

notakio 3y ago

I moved out of SF ~2018, and only recently revisited, and the increased frequency with which I saw robocars was immediately concerning to me, largely based on the potential for things to go wrong, and with just how frequent they were. My second thought was, after hearing friends and family still there echo nothing for disdain for them, "how long before someone starts setting these on fire?" as some sort of nuisance campaign against the things. Turns out, 1) you don't need fire, and 2) not that long, since the cone thing started happening about a week afterwards.

standardUser 3y ago
I know this is a tired argument, but it's not wrong: There is equal or greater cause for concern with cars driven by people, we're just used to those horrors and reluctant to trade them for a different set of horrors, even if they are conclusively less horrible. I lived carless in downtown SF for 10 years, usually with a walking commute, and it was not pleasant. Packed streets full of angry, stressed drivers honking and swerving and practically revving their engines as lights change so they can gun it past cyclists and pedestrians down the next narrow street. Anyone trying to replace these agro drivers with marginally-safer robots has my support.
- more_corn 3y ago
  Uber performed self driving car tests in downtown San Francisco for a bit. I personally saw an error where self driving cars turning right on red failed to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk who had right of way. It was a bug. The driver looped and tried again while I was standing there and it happened again. It was an incident. It was a safety incident. Getting killed by a robot breaking the rules is no less dead than if it were a human. And there’s no comfort in the thought that it might happen less often with a robot driving. Your argument that human drivers suck commits the fallacy of whataboutism. Your argument that not all incidents are safety incidents is misleading. There are safety incidents they’re unacceptable.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    It doesn't commit the fallacy of whataboutism - it's the same issue and a direct substitute. Any safety incident is unacceptable is not a realistic standard, and I am not sure why a lower rate of incident is not a convincing argument for you. Yes, getting killed by a robot leaves you no less dead, but if 5 people are killed by robots where 10 people would have been killed by people, isn't that a net positive?
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      If 10 people were killed by people, then there could be 10 wrongful-death lawsuits and 10 car insurance claims and 10 cases of liability and 10 criminal investigations and 10 driver's licenses sanctioned, where each and every human behind the wheel must accept responsibility and assume liability for the harm caused to other human beings, and/or property. If 5 people are killed by SDCs, then 5 executors will need to visit our website, create an account, and submit a request for reimbursement for funeral expenses. Please upload your death certificate and all itemized receipts. Our best AI will absolutely make its best efforts to find out which remote human operator caused those cars to begin driving, and then we will launch an internal investigation into whether their pay should be cut, or maybe we'll put them on paid leave instead and connect them with a grief counselor. Thank you for choosing WayMo. Scan this QR code to install our app!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

paxys 3y ago

> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path. It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic, and that should not be excused as "oh it's just learning". Self driving car companies love to release reports comparing themselves against regular drivers when it comes to collisions and deaths, but conveniently skip over every other aspect of driving. The way things are today, if we continue to release more and more of them into San Francisco it will basically lead up to a total traffic deadlock, and yet people will still keep repeating "oh but they kill 0.1 fewer people per million miles so it's an improvement".

veec_cas_tant 3y ago
> And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path Are you considering someone putting a traffic cone on a vehicle a day-to-day situation?
- paxys 3y ago
  What would you do if you were stopped at an intersection and someone put a traffic cone in front of you? Sit there for the rest of your life blocking everyone behind you, or move it/drive around it? Same for literally every example that deviates from the happy path, no matter how minor. Construction work, something fallen on the road, a delivery van stopped on the side, temporary street closures. These cars are nowhere close to being intelligent enough to handle city driving, and won't be for a very long time.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    I like that you’re getting downvoted but actually being able to react to these situations is a good skill to have.
  - brigade 3y ago

Animats 3y ago

> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket. Google could get tough about that. If you have Google Play Services on your phone, they know who you are. "Your Google account has been terminated for violation of Google's terms of service."

akira2501 3y ago

> I'm not sure how it's misleading, but separating "incidents" into categories The premise is that these vehicles would be unilaterally "better" than human drivers and that would justify their creation and use. If that's not the case, then perhaps we need to fully reevaluate the value proposition here. > While that's an inconvenience to other drivers, it's not a safety issue at all. It hasn't proved to be a safety issue _yet_. We don't actually have enough data to forecast with here. I see this as a safety signal with troubling implications. > as a motorcyclist (and thus hyper annoyed at bad driving) This is another safety signal I would be wary of... unless "hyper annoyed" is just hyperbole for it's own sake. > We should have scrutiny on the safety of these machines, but they're hardly the biggest problem facing SF. The problem with automation is small problems have a tendency to combine into massive emergent problems once you start scaling your fleet up.

jstummbillig 3y ago
> The problem with automation is small problems have a tendency to combine into massive emergent problems once you start scaling your fleet up. Not in this case, no. Every driver has a small problem. Each ai driver is just another driver, replacing some driver. Unless the ai driver problem is not small but actually quite big, I don't see how automation economics would worsen the situation. On the contrary, them all being identical and automated makes fixing the small problems much more viable.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Except Humans are dynamic and the AI is pre-programmed. So Humans can _react_ to emergent conditions whereas AI is completely subsumed by it. There's a good hint here that when Waymo cars "break down" a remote Human operator takes over. If your view is correct, this could never work.
  - jstummbillig 3y ago
    In light of whats happening right this moment with AI/GPTs, I am not sure if you are being ironic or not. If so, well played.