5 ms·
> In ten years, probably no human can compete with AI drivers anymore. That's what they said 10 years ago. Sooner or later people will say it and be right, but
by svachalek 3y ago
> In ten years, probably no human can compete with AI drivers anymore.
That's what they said 10 years ago. Sooner or later people will say it and be right, but the last few percent of any problem is a lot harder than people give it credit for. It may not be that hard to stay in a lane or write a little code, and that may look like it's doing most of the job, but those common tasks are just the easy part.
- huytersd 3y agoI think Waymo does better than a vast percentage of human drivers. It’s here already.
- cjbgkagh 3y agoBut the average hour is not driven by the average driver, better drivers drive more hours, so it has to be better than the average driver in order to result in fewer incidents.
- huytersd 3y agoThere’s no reason better drivers drive more hours. You can be a shit semi driver. That being said, it’s an irrelevant comment. If it’s at average now this is the worst it can get and it’s already way above average.
- cjbgkagh 3y agoI don’t disagree that self driving is good and will eventually get there. Just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. Yes, such a person can exist, the hypothetical counter example doesn’t disprove the general statement. I think it’s safe to say that in general the more time someone spends driving the better driver they are.
- ArtTimeInvestor 3y ago10 years ago, a lot of FSD was still manually written code. Manually written code gets harder and harder to improve, the larger the codebase. Now it is all NNs and therefore will scale with more data and more compute. Which is increasing exponentially. So far it seems like they are not hitting diminishing returns.
- Buttons840 3y agoYeah, and plain Q learning is able to iteratively improve a policy in any environment. Every single loop leading to improvement, and yet it hasn't really solved much of anything since the 60s (just some toy problems). My point being, we don't know where the asymptote lies. Computers have had self improving algorithms since the 60s, and people have been making the same bold claims, like you, that because an iterative process for improvement has been discovered, we're close to super human AI since the 60s too.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago“Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. My guess is industrial and home robotics will solve a lot of the “doing things around humans” problems in the next ten years. Why the hell people decided to automate giant death machines before perfecting small things never made sense to me.
- ArtTimeInvestor 3y agoDriving the giant death machines costs us billions of manhours every day. Hundreds of billions of manhours per year. Which small thing puts a similar burden on mankind?
- bevekspldnw 3y agoPhones.
- jsheard 3y ago> “Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. Plus there's serious questions about liability with self driving cars which are still unresolved in most of the world - if the goal is to have vehicles operate themselves with no human supervision, who goes to jail when they kill someone? Despite all of the progress that's been made with AI it's mostly been in low-stakes problems where failure isn't a big deal, so we don't have a consensus on what we're supposed to do when a neural network negligently obliterates a person because some logistics company wanted to save a few bucks on driver salaries.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 3y agoThe answer almost certainly has to be the manufacturer. I'm sure not responsible if my properly maintained and used self-driving car kills someone. That said, it's a novel area that doesn't have a clear analog to other products today.