4 ms·

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 inc

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.
    - dcow 3y ago
      Sounds like you’re arguing that “AI” is better at navigating complex human discussion than the multiple humans in this thread? I’ll take that conclusion, I guess (whether you ultimately believe yourself or someone else arguing against your own points doesn't really matter, does it). Really the only thing left is for you to take a flight to SF and watch the Waymo cars drive. Or ride in one if you dare.

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.
  - dcow 3y ago
    Sounds like you’re arguing that “AI” is better at navigating complex human discussion than the multiple humans in this thread? I’ll take that conclusion, I guess (whether you ultimately believe yourself or someone else arguing against your own points doesn't really matter, does it). Really the only thing left is for you to take a flight to SF and watch the Waymo cars drive. Or ride in one if you dare.