4 ms·

This is doing correctly what the car company did wrong. They start with a system that does not have a fatal incident upon failure. Meaning that even 1% or 10% f

This is doing correctly what the car company did wrong. They start with a system that does not have a fatal incident upon failure. Meaning that even 1% or 10% failure rate is totally fine and possibly positive in terms of ROI. On the other hand, even 0.01% is not acceptable when the system is responsible for human lives. I also believe that cameras and visible spectrum are scalable and sufficient, and there is evidence it is so. The most reliable system driving cars is the homo sapiens and apart from a bit of proprioceptive, vehicles are operated based on vision sensors(eyes). To conclude, I find it a clever move to start refining the technology in a field where ROI is in dollar terms and not in lives saved. To the found: Good luck, i am jealous.

sfilmeyer 1y ago
>On the other hand, even 0.01% is not acceptable when the system is responsible for human lives. I've got bad news for you about a whole lot of medical tests and interventions if 0.01% is unacceptable for you. I get your point that the stakes might be higher with medical technology than in some other fields, but you're still setting the bar too high. The first pathogen I saw mentioned by name while skimming through the linked article was H. Pylori, where the false-positive and false-negative rates for various currently used tests are several dozen times worse than that at about 0.30-0.90% [0]. Even just being hospitalized in and of itself has failure rates. Just eyeballing some of the numbers at [1] and elsewhere, I suspect that at least 0.01% of hospitalizations result in a death attributable to a hospital acquired infection. [0] https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2019/0701/p16.html https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2019/0701/p16.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/php/data/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/php/dat...

sfilmeyer 1y ago

>On the other hand, even 0.01% is not acceptable when the system is responsible for human lives. I've got bad news for you about a whole lot of medical tests and interventions if 0.01% is unacceptable for you. I get your point that the stakes might be higher with medical technology than in some other fields, but you're still setting the bar too high. The first pathogen I saw mentioned by name while skimming through the linked article was H. Pylori, where the false-positive and false-negative rates for various currently used tests are several dozen times worse than that at about 0.30-0.90% [0]. Even just being hospitalized in and of itself has failure rates. Just eyeballing some of the numbers at [1] and elsewhere, I suspect that at least 0.01% of hospitalizations result in a death attributable to a hospital acquired infection. [0] https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2019/0701/p16.html https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2019/0701/p16.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/php/data/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/php/dat...