4 ms·

This is a major flaw in decision making that some people have: A new solution that has less problems is worse than an existing solution with more problems. Th

by Braxton1980 1y ago

This is a major flaw in decision making that some people have: A new solution that has less problems is worse than an existing solution with more problems. There's also a willingness to be less upset with humans making a mistake than a machine. Edit: Unknown problems may or may not exist so while I think that concern makes sense it doesn't matter until they come up. I'm making the decision based on the current state. If additional issues come about then you reevaluate if the new solution is better or worse than the existing. If you consider unknown problems then how can you make a decision? X+Y > Z? Where X is the weight of problems for the new solution, Z is the weigh for the existing solution, and Y is a value between 0 and infinity (unknown problems)

hvb2 1y ago
> A new solution that has less problems is worse than an existing solution with more problems Don't disagree, but new solutions can come with unknowns
username332211 1y ago
> There's also a willingness to be less upset humans making a mistake than a machine. There's willingness to be upset at anyone with deep pockets who can be found accountable. And the motivations for that aren't emotional, they are purely material. There's a reason why people have spent decades trying to find pharmacological cause for autism, in spite of the enormous amount of evidence that the condition is mostly hereditary. And a very good reason why vaccines in America are exempt from the legal system.
dotancohen 1y ago
It's not an issue of having more or having less problems. The issue is having unknown, unfamiliar problems.
steveBK123 1y ago
We don’t know that it has less problems. The distribution of errors is as important as the error rate. Simply being sober, awake, calm and not texting puts you far above the average driver and are things you can control. A self diving car which, apparently 10+ years into development is currently running red lights randomly 1% of the time is not in your control.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >A self diving car which, apparently 10+ years into development is currently running red lights randomly 1% of the time is not in your control. It can be controlled however. >Simply being sober, awake, calm and not texting puts you far above the average driver and are things you can control. It's not important if it's possible, what matters if it happens.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    It's conditional probabilities. I am not elderly, do not DUI, drive tired, or touch my phone while driving. I put myself in a different risk pool by my behavior. I step into a Tesla FSD car, I am in the same risk pool as everyone else in one when it decides to run 1% of red lights or whatever other stupid bug in the next release.
    - enslavedrobot 1y ago
      The point of FSD is to take control of the car makes an error (like running a red light). I am a better driver with it on. The unsupervised "robotaxi" uses a different NN. It doesn't behave the same way as FSD.

hvb2 1y ago

> A new solution that has less problems is worse than an existing solution with more problems Don't disagree, but new solutions can come with unknowns

username332211 1y ago

> There's also a willingness to be less upset humans making a mistake than a machine. There's willingness to be upset at anyone with deep pockets who can be found accountable. And the motivations for that aren't emotional, they are purely material. There's a reason why people have spent decades trying to find pharmacological cause for autism, in spite of the enormous amount of evidence that the condition is mostly hereditary. And a very good reason why vaccines in America are exempt from the legal system.

dotancohen 1y ago

It's not an issue of having more or having less problems. The issue is having unknown, unfamiliar problems.

steveBK123 1y ago

We don’t know that it has less problems. The distribution of errors is as important as the error rate. Simply being sober, awake, calm and not texting puts you far above the average driver and are things you can control. A self diving car which, apparently 10+ years into development is currently running red lights randomly 1% of the time is not in your control.

Braxton1980 1y ago
>A self diving car which, apparently 10+ years into development is currently running red lights randomly 1% of the time is not in your control. It can be controlled however. >Simply being sober, awake, calm and not texting puts you far above the average driver and are things you can control. It's not important if it's possible, what matters if it happens.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  It's conditional probabilities. I am not elderly, do not DUI, drive tired, or touch my phone while driving. I put myself in a different risk pool by my behavior. I step into a Tesla FSD car, I am in the same risk pool as everyone else in one when it decides to run 1% of red lights or whatever other stupid bug in the next release.
  - enslavedrobot 1y ago
    The point of FSD is to take control of the car makes an error (like running a red light). I am a better driver with it on. The unsupervised "robotaxi" uses a different NN. It doesn't behave the same way as FSD.