3 ms·

> 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, m

> 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
>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. This bypasses the entirety of the trust argument originally stated by leveraging the very point (statistics) it cautioned against. (As stated elsewhere: "So all the bleating about statistics may be necessary, but not sufficient, to get wide-scale adoption of AVs on public roadways.") >none of these three cases Regardless if you think the decision should be based on statistics alone, my further point is that an n=3 sample size is not adequate to make strong claims. Add to it that Waymo only reports the data they want to[1], there is a reason to be careful about making any claims. Here's how that scenario plays out when we rely on organizations to self-report safety data in a competitive environment, from my experience. Even though it may start with the best of intentions, cost and schedule pressure builds. Now items that would have otherwise been reported as safety incidents are now classified with vague terms like "test anomalies" and essentially buried. They will still report safety metrics, but now it's, at best, incomplete and misleading. Until some event that's egregious enough forces the company to be more transparent. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/have-selfdriving-cars-stopped-gett https://spectrum.ieee.org/have-selfdriving-cars-stopped-gett...
- mannykannot 3y ago
  It is absurd of you to suppose that Waymo's testing has yielded just three data points on the safety of its cars... Just suppose there had been no incidents incidents at all - then they would clearly have to be banned from the road, as we would have absolutely no data pertaining to their safety!
  - bumby 3y ago
    Again, missed the point. We shouldn't make strong claims about self-curated data when there's an incentive to make that data look safer than it actually was. We know they aren't fully transparent. We also know that other well-known and well-funded AV developers have very bad practices that are highlighted when they are forced by regulators to be transparent. While that isn't a smoking gun against Waymo, it should give us pause and make one question a naive perspective in favor of a skeptical one.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      "the point" You made two points right next to each other, about sample size and bias, and the sample size point was invalid. When called out on that, you don't get to move the goalposts and say that the second one was "the point" and the other person is "missing the point".
      - bumby 3y ago
        There's a subtle nuance you're missing. I am not saying the data is biased, I'm saying we have good reason to believe the data may be biased. I have been careful not to say any strong claims about Waymo here, because my stance is we probably don't have enough data to make such claims. It's a small, but crucial difference. We would need more data (ie a larger sample size) to make a strong bias claim. Given the protracted nature of this thread, I get why it's confusing. I have a couple sub-threads that make those two points separately, and was simply trying to show how both are related. If one isn't aware of the broader context of the discussion I was making, I understand why it may seem like goalpost moving. But in reality, I was deliberately trying to tie the two related posts together because (IMO at least) they are related.

bumby 3y ago

>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. This bypasses the entirety of the trust argument originally stated by leveraging the very point (statistics) it cautioned against. (As stated elsewhere: "So all the bleating about statistics may be necessary, but not sufficient, to get wide-scale adoption of AVs on public roadways.") >none of these three cases Regardless if you think the decision should be based on statistics alone, my further point is that an n=3 sample size is not adequate to make strong claims. Add to it that Waymo only reports the data they want to[1], there is a reason to be careful about making any claims. Here's how that scenario plays out when we rely on organizations to self-report safety data in a competitive environment, from my experience. Even though it may start with the best of intentions, cost and schedule pressure builds. Now items that would have otherwise been reported as safety incidents are now classified with vague terms like "test anomalies" and essentially buried. They will still report safety metrics, but now it's, at best, incomplete and misleading. Until some event that's egregious enough forces the company to be more transparent. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/have-selfdriving-cars-stopped-gett https://spectrum.ieee.org/have-selfdriving-cars-stopped-gett...

mannykannot 3y ago
It is absurd of you to suppose that Waymo's testing has yielded just three data points on the safety of its cars... Just suppose there had been no incidents incidents at all - then they would clearly have to be banned from the road, as we would have absolutely no data pertaining to their safety!
- bumby 3y ago
  Again, missed the point. We shouldn't make strong claims about self-curated data when there's an incentive to make that data look safer than it actually was. We know they aren't fully transparent. We also know that other well-known and well-funded AV developers have very bad practices that are highlighted when they are forced by regulators to be transparent. While that isn't a smoking gun against Waymo, it should give us pause and make one question a naive perspective in favor of a skeptical one.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    "the point" You made two points right next to each other, about sample size and bias, and the sample size point was invalid. When called out on that, you don't get to move the goalposts and say that the second one was "the point" and the other person is "missing the point".
    - bumby 3y ago
      There's a subtle nuance you're missing. I am not saying the data is biased, I'm saying we have good reason to believe the data may be biased. I have been careful not to say any strong claims about Waymo here, because my stance is we probably don't have enough data to make such claims. It's a small, but crucial difference. We would need more data (ie a larger sample size) to make a strong bias claim. Given the protracted nature of this thread, I get why it's confusing. I have a couple sub-threads that make those two points separately, and was simply trying to show how both are related. If one isn't aware of the broader context of the discussion I was making, I understand why it may seem like goalpost moving. But in reality, I was deliberately trying to tie the two related posts together because (IMO at least) they are related.