3 ms·
It works regardless of how big p is. Engine failures in aircraft are exceedingly rare but this statistical effect of needing p^2 events instead of p events has
by hackerlight 2y ago
It works regardless of how big p is. Engine failures in aircraft are exceedingly rare but this statistical effect of needing p^2 events instead of p events has saved many lives. Having multiple pilots has the same rationale. While errors are correlated, getting an error past two pilots is roughly p - p^2 less likely than if you had a solo pilot.
Self-driving, as a mission critical endeavor, needs to be leveraging the same statistical phenomenon in order to reduce the exceedingly rare but highly impactful mistakes.
And by "something it didn't see" I'm talking about CNN/ViT mistakes/hallucinations. I don't see any evidence that it occurs at a level that's much smaller than humans. Any safety data we have is with human oversight. So the majority of errors are caught by humans and won't show up in FSD crash frequency or other publicly available data.
- ajross 2y ago> Self-driving, as a mission critical endeavor, needs to be leveraging the same statistical phenomenon in order to reduce the exceedingly rare but highly impactful mistakes. Uh... why? Shouldn't the goal be to be safer than people? Basically that's just bad engineering: If your argument is not to deploy an existing system that is better than the current installed base because some other technique might be better still, you are harming your metric (safety) and not helping.
- hackerlight 2y agoI'm talking about robotaxis. There is no safety data available for vision-only robotaxis. It's a hypothetical system that we are speculating about. If Tesla had one that's safer than humans, then yes they should be allowed to deploy it. My argument was that they're making it harder for themselves to exceed that safety threshold by insisting on vision only.