4 ms·

The same applies to regular drivers. We do not track accidents they prevent.

by thesz 3y ago

throw310822 3y ago
Easy, humans prevent nearly 100% of the accidents. A car without a driver invariably crashes in a few seconds. The question is how many accidents (if any) self driving prevents with respect to average human drivers.
- bumby 3y ago
  This is such an odd take I don’t know if it’s trolling. Both can be measured against similar metrics (an AV model against the avg AV/avg human or vice versa.
- thesz 3y ago
  Self-driving cars are used in a very controlled environment. They will not function in high grass, I guess from my experience with different parktronics. The best "off road" demonstration of self-driving and/or AI assistance I've found is this: https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2016/07/jaguar-land-rover-demonstrates-all-terrain-self-driving-technology https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2016/07/jaguar-land-r... Note they avoid going into grass. Human can deduce trails from grass profile, AI? I don't think so. Will you count an inability to reach a lakeside as an accident? I guess, no.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    We have not trained AIs to deduce trails from grass. AIs need training before they can do things.* *They just might be learning to do things without being trained based on the emergency behavior I see in LLMs.
    - thesz 3y ago
      My point was not about discerning track from grass, but about driving in acttual grass. Current self-driving tech uses sensors that are useless in high grass. As for "emergency behavior" (emergent behavior, I guess) - we do not know how LLMs are trained. Thus, what you consider "emergency behavior," could very well be a part of training.
gensym 3y ago
Or even the ones they cause, for the most part. It's notoriously difficult to get clean data about non-fatal crashes.
- thesz 3y ago
  This Cruise debacle clearly shows it is notoriously difficult to get clean data about crashes caused by or related to self-driving vehicles.

The same applies to regular drivers. We do not track accidents they prevent.

by thesz 3y ago

The same applies to regular drivers. We do not track accidents they prevent.

Easy, humans prevent nearly 100% of the accidents. A car without a driver invariably crashes in a few seconds. The question is how many accidents (if any) self driving prevents with respect to average human drivers.

bumby 3y ago
This is such an odd take I don’t know if it’s trolling. Both can be measured against similar metrics (an AV model against the avg AV/avg human or vice versa.
thesz 3y ago
Self-driving cars are used in a very controlled environment. They will not function in high grass, I guess from my experience with different parktronics. The best "off road" demonstration of self-driving and/or AI assistance I've found is this: https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2016/07/jaguar-land-rover-demonstrates-all-terrain-self-driving-technology https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2016/07/jaguar-land-r... Note they avoid going into grass. Human can deduce trails from grass profile, AI? I don't think so. Will you count an inability to reach a lakeside as an accident? I guess, no.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  We have not trained AIs to deduce trails from grass. AIs need training before they can do things.* *They just might be learning to do things without being trained based on the emergency behavior I see in LLMs.
  - thesz 3y ago
    My point was not about discerning track from grass, but about driving in acttual grass. Current self-driving tech uses sensors that are useless in high grass. As for "emergency behavior" (emergent behavior, I guess) - we do not know how LLMs are trained. Thus, what you consider "emergency behavior," could very well be a part of training.

gensym 3y ago

Or even the ones they cause, for the most part. It's notoriously difficult to get clean data about non-fatal crashes.

thesz 3y ago
This Cruise debacle clearly shows it is notoriously difficult to get clean data about crashes caused by or related to self-driving vehicles.