3 ms·

>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 estab

by 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.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    > Again, missed the point.... If your absurd claim that Waymo's trials provide just three relevant data points is not part of "the point", then why did you make it? It does not give us any confidence in the proposition that "the point" has been well thought-out. Furthermore, "the point" keeps shifting: recently it shifted to raising doubts about the provenance of the data whipped up from a six-year-old article. At this point, I feel that a quote is appropriate: "the ability of people to consistently miss/twist the point to fit their own predetermined viewpoint is tiresome."
    - bumby 3y ago
      As I've said elsewhere, my point was part of a larger context. My point was about how important trust is to adoption of AV tech. That goes well beyond the Waymo cases illustrated. The sample size and quality of the data illustrates the need for a broader context of information needed, in addition to the need to understand that humans don't build trust simply from statistical arguments. And in the vein of trying to steel-man your position, I gave the comment to ChatGPT to see if it, too, considered the central point a claim about AV having a "death wish." Here's what it said: "The statement highlights that some AI tasks, while effective, may deviate from conventional practices. An example is given where the Department of Defense (DoD) employed a company to train a dogfighting simulator using reinforcement learning (RL). Pilots were surprised by the simulator breaking established best practices and behaving recklessly, akin to a pilot with a disregard for safety. The implication is that while such behavior might be advantageous in a military context, it may pose risks or be unsuitable in civilian settings, such as public roads. The statement underscores the need to carefully consider and tailor AI applications to specific contexts and objectives." So it seemed to recognize that the central point is that "the behavior" in question is "breaking established best practices" and that the "implication is that while such behavior might be advantageous in a military context, it may pose risks or be unsuitable in civilian settings". There's probably some irony in the fact that AI did better at a reading task.

by bumby 3y ago

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.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  > Again, missed the point.... If your absurd claim that Waymo's trials provide just three relevant data points is not part of "the point", then why did you make it? It does not give us any confidence in the proposition that "the point" has been well thought-out. Furthermore, "the point" keeps shifting: recently it shifted to raising doubts about the provenance of the data whipped up from a six-year-old article. At this point, I feel that a quote is appropriate: "the ability of people to consistently miss/twist the point to fit their own predetermined viewpoint is tiresome."
  - bumby 3y ago
    As I've said elsewhere, my point was part of a larger context. My point was about how important trust is to adoption of AV tech. That goes well beyond the Waymo cases illustrated. The sample size and quality of the data illustrates the need for a broader context of information needed, in addition to the need to understand that humans don't build trust simply from statistical arguments. And in the vein of trying to steel-man your position, I gave the comment to ChatGPT to see if it, too, considered the central point a claim about AV having a "death wish." Here's what it said: "The statement highlights that some AI tasks, while effective, may deviate from conventional practices. An example is given where the Department of Defense (DoD) employed a company to train a dogfighting simulator using reinforcement learning (RL). Pilots were surprised by the simulator breaking established best practices and behaving recklessly, akin to a pilot with a disregard for safety. The implication is that while such behavior might be advantageous in a military context, it may pose risks or be unsuitable in civilian settings, such as public roads. The statement underscores the need to carefully consider and tailor AI applications to specific contexts and objectives." So it seemed to recognize that the central point is that "the behavior" in question is "breaking established best practices" and that the "implication is that while such behavior might be advantageous in a military context, it may pose risks or be unsuitable in civilian settings". There's probably some irony in the fact that AI did better at a reading task.