6 ms·

Your comparison is RL dogfighting? I think you need to brush up on recent autonomous driving systems…

by dcow 3y ago

bumby 3y ago
Do you not feel they are related? In general, aviation tech tends to outpace automotive tech (I’ve worked in both). Maybe you could enlighten me?
- dcow 3y ago
  Modern AVs are not driving like they have a death wish by any stretch of the imagination (and these systems are not developed using raw RL). They are driving safer than humans. Any concern that they are not following established best practices is entirely unfounded and strictly grounded in FUD.
  - bumby 3y ago
    >They are driving safer than humans. I don’t think you can make this strong of a claim with the available data. Likewise, someone can’t make strong claim in the opposite direction. The best data I’ve seen is from NTSB investigations, and it clearly shows some very dangerous behavior. But it’s just a snapshot of data. And I think you’ve taken away the wrong point. It was about unexpected behavior, not “driving with a death wish.” The ability of people to consistently miss/twist the point to fit their own predetermined viewpoint is tiresome.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      > And I think you’ve taken away the wrong point. It was about unexpected behavior, not “driving with a death wish.” Indeed - so how did systems with a "death wish" enter into this discussion? Well, it turns out it was by you, about which you said "...maybe not so good on a public road." In this light, your complaint about others twisting the point seems rather ironic.
      - bumby 3y ago
        >so how did systems with a "death wish" enter into this discussion? It was the way the pilots described the unexpected behavior of the RL model. If I related a story about ChatGPT where someone said, "It wrote like it was drunk" would you insist that I'm saying ChatGPT actually imbibes in alcohol before coming up with a response? I think you might be missing the point of an analogy. This tends to correlate with people with dichotomous thinking, which is also part of the thread and the difficulty with people understanding the intended point. The part you missed was that the "maybe not so good on a public road" was about breaking "best practices," not about acting with a death wish. The intent was to underscore, yet again, was that unexpected behavior is sometimes beneficial in a wartime environment where you want to keep the other party guessing and off-balance, but not beneficial in a public safety domain. Again, twisting an argument to make a preconceived point rather than reading it as it was actually written. It's hard to get someone to understand a point when their biases are hell-bent on deliberately not understanding it.
        mannykannot 3y ago
        > It was the way the pilots described the unexpected behavior of the RL model. And you chose to quote it, and to make the point that it is not the sort of thing we want on public roads - as if there's the slightest hint in the extensive testing of these cars that the apocalyptic scenario you chose to introduce to this discussion was anything but hypothetical and hyperbolic FUD. And then you had the effrontery to chide dcow for responding to your claim, as if they were taking the discussion in this absurd direction. You've chosen to repeat yourself here, so I will say again that there is considerable irony in what you are doing - irony in the sense of statements being made that display a lack of self-awareness.
        cycomanic 3y ago
        > > It was the way the pilots described the unexpected behavior of the RL model. > And you chose to quote it, and to make the point that it is not the sort of thing we want on public roads - as if there's the slightest hint in the extensive testing of these cars that the apocalyptic scenario you chose to introduce to this discussion was anything but hypothetical and hyperbolic FUD. At some point there were numerous reports of cars using driving assist steering into the dividers at highway offramps. I believe there were in fact some some real accidents that happened this way. That definitely was unexpected behaviour and I would argue one could even qualify it as the car acting like it had a death wish so I don't think the OP statements can be qualified as hyperbolic FUD. Now you're going to argue that these were early incarnations of non AV systems (despite the name), but I think they do illustrate how the systems can behave in unpredictable (and dangerous) ways when they encounter novel situations. That's why I commend waymo for not following the hype and keeping the environment they operate very restricted.

Your comparison is RL dogfighting? I think you need to brush up on recent autonomous driving systems…

by dcow 3y ago

Your comparison is RL dogfighting? I think you need to brush up on recent autonomous driving systems…

Do you not feel they are related? In general, aviation tech tends to outpace automotive tech (I’ve worked in both). Maybe you could enlighten me?

dcow 3y ago
Modern AVs are not driving like they have a death wish by any stretch of the imagination (and these systems are not developed using raw RL). They are driving safer than humans. Any concern that they are not following established best practices is entirely unfounded and strictly grounded in FUD.
- bumby 3y ago
  >They are driving safer than humans. I don’t think you can make this strong of a claim with the available data. Likewise, someone can’t make strong claim in the opposite direction. The best data I’ve seen is from NTSB investigations, and it clearly shows some very dangerous behavior. But it’s just a snapshot of data. And I think you’ve taken away the wrong point. It was about unexpected behavior, not “driving with a death wish.” The ability of people to consistently miss/twist the point to fit their own predetermined viewpoint is tiresome.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    > And I think you’ve taken away the wrong point. It was about unexpected behavior, not “driving with a death wish.” Indeed - so how did systems with a "death wish" enter into this discussion? Well, it turns out it was by you, about which you said "...maybe not so good on a public road." In this light, your complaint about others twisting the point seems rather ironic.
    - bumby 3y ago
      >so how did systems with a "death wish" enter into this discussion? It was the way the pilots described the unexpected behavior of the RL model. If I related a story about ChatGPT where someone said, "It wrote like it was drunk" would you insist that I'm saying ChatGPT actually imbibes in alcohol before coming up with a response? I think you might be missing the point of an analogy. This tends to correlate with people with dichotomous thinking, which is also part of the thread and the difficulty with people understanding the intended point. The part you missed was that the "maybe not so good on a public road" was about breaking "best practices," not about acting with a death wish. The intent was to underscore, yet again, was that unexpected behavior is sometimes beneficial in a wartime environment where you want to keep the other party guessing and off-balance, but not beneficial in a public safety domain. Again, twisting an argument to make a preconceived point rather than reading it as it was actually written. It's hard to get someone to understand a point when their biases are hell-bent on deliberately not understanding it.
      - mannykannot 3y ago
        > It was the way the pilots described the unexpected behavior of the RL model. And you chose to quote it, and to make the point that it is not the sort of thing we want on public roads - as if there's the slightest hint in the extensive testing of these cars that the apocalyptic scenario you chose to introduce to this discussion was anything but hypothetical and hyperbolic FUD. And then you had the effrontery to chide dcow for responding to your claim, as if they were taking the discussion in this absurd direction. You've chosen to repeat yourself here, so I will say again that there is considerable irony in what you are doing - irony in the sense of statements being made that display a lack of self-awareness.
        cycomanic 3y ago
        > > It was the way the pilots described the unexpected behavior of the RL model. > And you chose to quote it, and to make the point that it is not the sort of thing we want on public roads - as if there's the slightest hint in the extensive testing of these cars that the apocalyptic scenario you chose to introduce to this discussion was anything but hypothetical and hyperbolic FUD. At some point there were numerous reports of cars using driving assist steering into the dividers at highway offramps. I believe there were in fact some some real accidents that happened this way. That definitely was unexpected behaviour and I would argue one could even qualify it as the car acting like it had a death wish so I don't think the OP statements can be qualified as hyperbolic FUD. Now you're going to argue that these were early incarnations of non AV systems (despite the name), but I think they do illustrate how the systems can behave in unpredictable (and dangerous) ways when they encounter novel situations. That's why I commend waymo for not following the hype and keeping the environment they operate very restricted.