3 ms·

> I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inher

by whack 2mo ago

> I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make Would you rather have a X% chance of a loved one dying from a human-category mistake? Or a 0.5X% chance of a loved one dying from a ML-category mistake? I would take the latter in a heartbeat. Why waste time optimizing for "categories" when you can optimize for your loved ones not dying

cortesoft 2mo ago
While I agree with you, not everyone does. You and I are thinking with a purely logical thought process, but most people don’t reason that way. A lot of people want to be able to hold someone accountable, and that is more important than the pure probabilities. They want to be able to blame a person for making a mistake.
johngalt 2mo ago
That is not the way human beings typically evaluate risks. 'Acceptable risks' are more about psychology and not a statistical calculation. A self driving car that is twice as safe as the human average would be considered an unacceptable risk. Add something that is new/unknown + lack of control, and you will have to clear a very high threshold to be considered 'acceptably safe'. My guess is a minimum of a 0.1x.
- SR2Z 2mo ago
  I don't think that human beings factor the rate of injury or death in at all, because human beings are notoriously bad with expected values from extreme conditions. Once people get used to taking robotaxis, they won't care. The bar is "safe enough for very few people to have a bad experience." If you take 10 robotaxi rides in a row and they all go flawlessly your subjective interpretation of the risk will be that there isn't any. I feel confident saying this because if you die in the US to anything other than old age, it was almost certainly a car crash. Despite this, most people don't think twice before getting in a car.
overgard 2mo ago
"Trust" isn't just about "% of a chance I die". It's like "can this system actually function well in the environment I'm in". For instance, I live in the midwest. Our roads are AWFUL compared to most coastal areas, the weather can get really extreme (-20 in the winters), there are things like invisible black ice which is a huge hazard, people drive giant brodozers, etc. If I'm in a taxi or an uber or something, I trust that the driver can adapt to these conditions. I do not trust that a Waymo can. I'm not saying that's a "never" thing, but it is a big deal.

by whack 2mo ago

cortesoft 2mo ago

While I agree with you, not everyone does. You and I are thinking with a purely logical thought process, but most people don’t reason that way. A lot of people want to be able to hold someone accountable, and that is more important than the pure probabilities. They want to be able to blame a person for making a mistake.

johngalt 2mo ago

That is not the way human beings typically evaluate risks. 'Acceptable risks' are more about psychology and not a statistical calculation. A self driving car that is twice as safe as the human average would be considered an unacceptable risk. Add something that is new/unknown + lack of control, and you will have to clear a very high threshold to be considered 'acceptably safe'. My guess is a minimum of a 0.1x.

SR2Z 2mo ago
I don't think that human beings factor the rate of injury or death in at all, because human beings are notoriously bad with expected values from extreme conditions. Once people get used to taking robotaxis, they won't care. The bar is "safe enough for very few people to have a bad experience." If you take 10 robotaxi rides in a row and they all go flawlessly your subjective interpretation of the risk will be that there isn't any. I feel confident saying this because if you die in the US to anything other than old age, it was almost certainly a car crash. Despite this, most people don't think twice before getting in a car.

overgard 2mo ago

"Trust" isn't just about "% of a chance I die". It's like "can this system actually function well in the environment I'm in". For instance, I live in the midwest. Our roads are AWFUL compared to most coastal areas, the weather can get really extreme (-20 in the winters), there are things like invisible black ice which is a huge hazard, people drive giant brodozers, etc. If I'm in a taxi or an uber or something, I trust that the driver can adapt to these conditions. I do not trust that a Waymo can. I'm not saying that's a "never" thing, but it is a big deal.