Arizona Government Suspends Uber's Self Driving Cars from Roads

Post by dawnerd » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:36 AM UTC

spiderPig wrote: post #22

owenversteeg wrote: post #9

Saying nothing about Google/Waymo, it appears they're allowed to continue? Their self-driving technology seems far more advanced, I think it would be unfair to punish all the players for the bad actions of a few. In particular, Uber seems to have been operating self-driving cars recklessly and in an attempt to "move fast and break things". When those things are people's lives, that's unacceptable. I'm all for interes…

Which makes me think of it would be prudent for the government or military to invest in this tech as well. Companies like Northrop Grumman while being bureaucratic nightmares, take safety pretty seriously.

Post by jazoom » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:42 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #35

jazoom wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

n=1 (To reduce the number of email notifications I'm getting I'd best put this message in parentheses right next to this statement. NOTE: I'm not a statistician and don't believe statistics are all that important here! All I meant to say here is that this is a single incident. That's it. Nothing more.) Edit: I'm getting the impression some people think I am suggesting there aren't grounds to suspend Uber's driving ba…

No, bad statistician, don't pass go. N = 3,000,000. Miles are the observation here. We're talking # of mortalities per mile, so mile is the N. If you want to talk about the problem of only have a single mortality incident, you need to do the work of determining the likelihood of a 1 in 100,000,000 observation incident occurring in the first 3,000,000 observations. I leave that detail to the students.

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:43 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #38

suresk wrote: post #32

For all of the theoretical moral questions that have been brought up around self driving cars (the proverbial lever that lets you kill one person instead of a handful, for example), it's interesting/inevitable that this one came up first. I'm sure lots of people will argue that self-driving cars will, in the long run, save a lot of lives, and therefore we can justify some loss of life in the process. They are probabl…

Based on what came out of the last few days I don’t think it’s clear at all, I think a human would not have hit the woman. The footage we saw was from a terrible dashcam and did not represent how dark the street actually was. Other people who have driven down the street with cameras show it to be perfectly reasonably lit, with streetlights and everything. Second, the woman was crossing across two lanes, so any driver…

Post by ineedasername » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:53 AM UTC

jazoom wrote: post #44

ineedasername wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, bad statistician, don't pass go. N = 3,000,000. Miles are the observation here. We're talking # of mortalities per mile, so mile is the N. If you want to talk about the problem of only have a single mortality incident, you need to do the work of determining the likelihood of a 1 in 100,000,000 observation incident occurring in the first 3,000,000 observations. I leave that detail to the students.

Then that number becomes arbitrary. If it was measured in deaths per lightyear your 'n' would become 0. You know what I meant when I said "n=1".

Post by mfrommil » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:58 AM UTC

jazoom wrote: post #10

vkou wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans kill 1 person every ~100m miles. Uber has killed 1 person after ~3m miles. Yes, I would absolutely suspend a system that kills 3,000 people/day in favor of a system that kills 100 people/day.

n=1 (To reduce the number of email notifications I'm getting I'd best put this message in parentheses right next to this statement. NOTE: I'm not a statistician and don't believe statistics are all that important here! All I meant to say here is that this is a single incident. That's it. Nothing more.) Edit: I'm getting the impression some people think I am suggesting there aren't grounds to suspend Uber's driving ba…