4 ms·

> 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 w

> 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.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      > Now you're going to argue that these were early incarnations... Well, yes I am, because, as you realize, it is a valid point! I will also add that, I have, myself, made the point that we have to be careful because complex systems have bizarre failure modes, so just because, in everyday circumstances, these systems may appear to function 'sensibly', we cannot simply trust them to be 'sensible' outside of the scope of testing. I am, however, a believer in the relevance of empirical evidence, and I also agree (with some caveats) that human-driver performance is a valid basis for establishing whether, and to what extent, autonomous vehicles may be permitted on public roads. We are discussing the publication of some results of Waymo's extensive testing, and I stand by what I wrote in my first response here: none of these three cases involved the Waymo car behaving in ways that are not that uncommon among human drivers, and our theory of mind does not make us nearly-infallible predictors of what another driver is going to do. I agree with you that Waymo is taking the right approach here (and, FWIW, I regard Tesla's two-faced stance as unethical.) I doubt I would have objected to Bumby's invocation of a death wish in response to the past events of which you speak, but in response to Waymo's test results and the points I made about them, I think 'hyperbolic FUD' is justified. At some point, a rational person has to make accommodations when things have changed and arguments based on old data lose their relevance.

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.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    > Now you're going to argue that these were early incarnations... Well, yes I am, because, as you realize, it is a valid point! I will also add that, I have, myself, made the point that we have to be careful because complex systems have bizarre failure modes, so just because, in everyday circumstances, these systems may appear to function 'sensibly', we cannot simply trust them to be 'sensible' outside of the scope of testing. I am, however, a believer in the relevance of empirical evidence, and I also agree (with some caveats) that human-driver performance is a valid basis for establishing whether, and to what extent, autonomous vehicles may be permitted on public roads. We are discussing the publication of some results of Waymo's extensive testing, and I stand by what I wrote in my first response here: none of these three cases involved the Waymo car behaving in ways that are not that uncommon among human drivers, and our theory of mind does not make us nearly-infallible predictors of what another driver is going to do. I agree with you that Waymo is taking the right approach here (and, FWIW, I regard Tesla's two-faced stance as unethical.) I doubt I would have objected to Bumby's invocation of a death wish in response to the past events of which you speak, but in response to Waymo's test results and the points I made about them, I think 'hyperbolic FUD' is justified. At some point, a rational person has to make accommodations when things have changed and arguments based on old data lose their relevance.