3 ms·

why should DUIs be excluded? There are regular human drivers out there at various levels of intoxication. I do want to know waymo vs all population. But yes it

by zild3d 2y ago

why should DUIs be excluded? There are regular human drivers out there at various levels of intoxication. I do want to know waymo vs all population. But yes it should be compared in the same areas during the same period.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
Maybe DUI's should be included, but a paper drawing the conclusion that "Waymo is safer because its computer drivers aren't drunk" suggests very different policy actions.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Unless we really can finally stop drunk driving overnight after all these years of trying I don't agree the comparison should result in significantly different policy. I want to know how Waymo statistically compares to all of all the actual drivers when setting policy, not how Waymo compares to what we wish real drivers would have been like. The only mistake would be to compare solely to drunk drivers, which is what you comment makes it sound like. I would like to see the data sets filtered to match driving areas though. I.e. Waymo drives almost exclusively in urban environments so per mile data should be compared almost exclusively to urban driver data.
  - unshavedyak 2y ago
    > ..not how Waymo compares to what we wish real drivers would have been like. I want to see "all the things", but in specific reply to this point, i want to see this because i have no intention to commit a DUI myself. So the bar for me personally is how well it'll do compared to safe drivers. Lots of stats are useful, but i don't think we should undersell the various "ai vs me" comparisons that individuals could use. Since those are the ones that will help people decide if they themselves can/should/shouldn't take a Waymo or w/e.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      But in terms of policy decisions, whether they should be allowed on the road, these are the correct numbers. Convincing people like you to ride is not the goal of this paper or its claims.
      - unshavedyak 2y ago
        Sure, was just commenting that i find it valuable. Not a commentary on the validity of the paper.

by zild3d 2y ago

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

Maybe DUI's should be included, but a paper drawing the conclusion that "Waymo is safer because its computer drivers aren't drunk" suggests very different policy actions.

zamadatix 2y ago
Unless we really can finally stop drunk driving overnight after all these years of trying I don't agree the comparison should result in significantly different policy. I want to know how Waymo statistically compares to all of all the actual drivers when setting policy, not how Waymo compares to what we wish real drivers would have been like. The only mistake would be to compare solely to drunk drivers, which is what you comment makes it sound like. I would like to see the data sets filtered to match driving areas though. I.e. Waymo drives almost exclusively in urban environments so per mile data should be compared almost exclusively to urban driver data.
- unshavedyak 2y ago
  > ..not how Waymo compares to what we wish real drivers would have been like. I want to see "all the things", but in specific reply to this point, i want to see this because i have no intention to commit a DUI myself. So the bar for me personally is how well it'll do compared to safe drivers. Lots of stats are useful, but i don't think we should undersell the various "ai vs me" comparisons that individuals could use. Since those are the ones that will help people decide if they themselves can/should/shouldn't take a Waymo or w/e.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    But in terms of policy decisions, whether they should be allowed on the road, these are the correct numbers. Convincing people like you to ride is not the goal of this paper or its claims.
    - unshavedyak 2y ago
      Sure, was just commenting that i find it valuable. Not a commentary on the validity of the paper.