5 ms·

Only way that happens is if the cyclist signs a boatload of paperwork to waive his right to litigation. And on top of that, I'm far less interested in the foot

Only way that happens is if the cyclist signs a boatload of paperwork to waive his right to litigation. And on top of that, I'm far less interested in the footage than I am the telemetry. What was the state of the gas and brake, what was the steering angle, how long was it from detection to action. Those things concretely answer the question of "would a human have done better or worse in this situation?", which is ultimately the only question that matters.

bagels 3y ago
It would have to be provided if the cyclist sues Waymo and reaches discovery.
lmm 3y ago
> And on top of that, I'm far less interested in the footage than I am the telemetry. What was the state of the gas and brake, what was the steering angle, how long was it from detection to action. Those things concretely answer the question of "would a human have done better or worse in this situation?" You absolutely cannot answer that question without looking at the video and considering how easy or hard it would have been for a human to detect (or suspect) the cyclist in that situation.
- jtriangle 3y ago
  I don't think you can "absolutely" answer the question with the information that, at least could be, available. You can certainly form an opinion that's closer to agreeing with reality however, which is mostly what I'm interested in.
Terr_ 3y ago
> I'm far less interested in the footage than I am the telemetry [...] how long was it from detection to action It sounds like you're making a deeply unreasonable assumption that no human could have detected or anticipated the cyclist faster than the computer did. Given the current state of the art, those times are frequently not the same, and the difference cannot be answered without seeing the human-consumable video footage of a prospective human driver.
- jtriangle 3y ago
  I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply posing a question, not answering it. It's your post that is nonsense, as it appears you've read about half of what I wrote before you replied.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    Perhaps it's not what you intended in your mind, but it's what you happened to type out in ASCII. In this quote, you are asserting that something is true:: > What was the state of the gas and brake, what was the steering angle, how long was it from detection to action. Those things concretely answer the question of "would a human have done better or worse in this situation?" Unfortunately it is not true: "Those things" you just identified in "the telemetry" can not "concretely answer" the question of "would a human have done better." In particular, that is because "done better" includes detecting the obstacle or risk sooner--not merely time between detection and braking. To answer that, the inputs that would have been available to a human must be scrutinized by other humans, which means the video is important.
    - jtriangle 3y ago
      Did I at any point say the video wasn't important? I don't recall doing so. I did assert that the telemetry was more interesting than the video, but the telemetry being more interesting than the video feed doesn't mean the video, itself, is not interesting. You missed that in favor of being pedantic, that says something about you, and if I thought it had any chance of helping, I'd tell you to take a long look in the mirror and wonder why you are the way you are. That'll be my last reply though, I'm watching a youtube stream of a guy trying to get gentoo to boot off NTFS, it's not going well, but it is more interesting than providing detailed analysis of simple language that you've misunderstood.
      - Terr_ 3y ago
        Imagine an alternate universe where everything was cut short by: "Oops, yeah, video would be important for that case, I was focused on a different failure-mode." > Did I at any point say the video wasn't important? Sounds like Motte and Bailey time. The expansive Bailey: "We don't need raw video to concretely answer whether the machine did better or worse than a human, the telemetry is sufficient." The defensible Motte: "I never said the video was unimportant..." > pedantic [...] detailed analysis Step 1: Casually dismiss the other person as having not read your post. Step 2: When they lay it out in detail, whine that they read your post too closely.

bagels 3y ago

It would have to be provided if the cyclist sues Waymo and reaches discovery.

lmm 3y ago

> And on top of that, I'm far less interested in the footage than I am the telemetry. What was the state of the gas and brake, what was the steering angle, how long was it from detection to action. Those things concretely answer the question of "would a human have done better or worse in this situation?" You absolutely cannot answer that question without looking at the video and considering how easy or hard it would have been for a human to detect (or suspect) the cyclist in that situation.

jtriangle 3y ago
I don't think you can "absolutely" answer the question with the information that, at least could be, available. You can certainly form an opinion that's closer to agreeing with reality however, which is mostly what I'm interested in.

Terr_ 3y ago

> I'm far less interested in the footage than I am the telemetry [...] how long was it from detection to action It sounds like you're making a deeply unreasonable assumption that no human could have detected or anticipated the cyclist faster than the computer did. Given the current state of the art, those times are frequently not the same, and the difference cannot be answered without seeing the human-consumable video footage of a prospective human driver.

jtriangle 3y ago
I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply posing a question, not answering it. It's your post that is nonsense, as it appears you've read about half of what I wrote before you replied.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  Perhaps it's not what you intended in your mind, but it's what you happened to type out in ASCII. In this quote, you are asserting that something is true:: > What was the state of the gas and brake, what was the steering angle, how long was it from detection to action. Those things concretely answer the question of "would a human have done better or worse in this situation?" Unfortunately it is not true: "Those things" you just identified in "the telemetry" can not "concretely answer" the question of "would a human have done better." In particular, that is because "done better" includes detecting the obstacle or risk sooner--not merely time between detection and braking. To answer that, the inputs that would have been available to a human must be scrutinized by other humans, which means the video is important.
  - jtriangle 3y ago
    Did I at any point say the video wasn't important? I don't recall doing so. I did assert that the telemetry was more interesting than the video, but the telemetry being more interesting than the video feed doesn't mean the video, itself, is not interesting. You missed that in favor of being pedantic, that says something about you, and if I thought it had any chance of helping, I'd tell you to take a long look in the mirror and wonder why you are the way you are. That'll be my last reply though, I'm watching a youtube stream of a guy trying to get gentoo to boot off NTFS, it's not going well, but it is more interesting than providing detailed analysis of simple language that you've misunderstood.
    - Terr_ 3y ago
      Imagine an alternate universe where everything was cut short by: "Oops, yeah, video would be important for that case, I was focused on a different failure-mode." > Did I at any point say the video wasn't important? Sounds like Motte and Bailey time. The expansive Bailey: "We don't need raw video to concretely answer whether the machine did better or worse than a human, the telemetry is sufficient." The defensible Motte: "I never said the video was unimportant..." > pedantic [...] detailed analysis Step 1: Casually dismiss the other person as having not read your post. Step 2: When they lay it out in detail, whine that they read your post too closely.