3 ms·

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 bef

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.
mlyle 3y ago
The issue that people have is you stated that you'd compare time from detection to action. What most people want to compare is time from when the bicyclist could have reasonably been detected to action. This requires looking at the video frames to decide when we think a human would have figured it out.

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.

mlyle 3y ago

The issue that people have is you stated that you'd compare time from detection to action. What most people want to compare is time from when the bicyclist could have reasonably been detected to action. This requires looking at the video frames to decide when we think a human would have figured it out.