61–70 of 334 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on now, I was asking clearly about data on Uber's death rate...
And I was specifically referring to the absurdity of comparing Uber's death rate to humans'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, i dont know what you mean. I know only that your comments do not portray a deep understanding of statistics and probability. Do your own homework to determine the liklihood of a low probability event ocurring within a small number of observations. That is you answer to the question of how meaningful it is that Uber experienced a fatality in only 3,000,000 miles.
You're being pompous. I never claimed to have those things. Re-read my original comment with my edit and you will see why I believe your statistics in fact do not answer the question of how meaningful Uber's fatality is. I doubt your expert testimony of pedantic statistics will trump common sense and the video evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? They crossed a 35 mph (so in Tempe this is a “slow” road) at a corner (unmarked corners are also crosswalks, legally) on a well lit road. Where the car was many seconds away when she started crossing. Would a human driver be deemed at fault in a court of law? Usually not (though in this case, maybe) unless they kept going after the collision, or were under the influence. But that’s because we give human drivers…
As a pedestrian, it's still our responsibility to make sure approaching vehicles are actually stopped before we start crossing. She did not, or she would be alive.
Edit: Also, if you as a pedestrian, stand at a 35mph road, at night, and wait for all approaching cars to stop before you start crossing, you will be standing there a very long time indeed.
Amen. Uber's fatal accident rate is now 50x that of sober human driver's. At their current rate of driving, they can't have a _lower_ rate until 2028! Inexcusable failure of their technology to prevent a human death in the most basic collision avoidance scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, i dont know what you mean. I know only that your comments do not portray a deep understanding of statistics and probability. Do your own homework to determine the liklihood of a low probability event ocurring within a small number of observations. That is you answer to the question of how meaningful it is that Uber experienced a fatality in only 3,000,000 miles.
You're being pompous. I never claimed to have those things. Re-read my original comment with my edit and you will see why I believe your statistics in fact do not answer the question of how meaningful Uber's fatality is. I doubt your expert testimony of pedantic statistics will trump common sense and the video evidence.
I'm only half joking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? They crossed a 35 mph (so in Tempe this is a “slow” road) at a corner (unmarked corners are also crosswalks, legally) on a well lit road. Where the car was many seconds away when she started crossing. Would a human driver be deemed at fault in a court of law? Usually not (though in this case, maybe) unless they kept going after the collision, or were under the influence. But that’s because we give human drivers…
I don't live there, but this article suggests that there is signage for "no pedestrians" at the location where she was struck: https://www.curbed.com/transportation/2018/3/20/17142090/ube... This twitter stream suggests the same with more details: https://twitter.com/EricPaulDennis/status/975889922413551616... It appears to me that they did not cross at a corner, and the corners "nearby" in the references above all h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a pedestrian, it's still our responsibility to make sure approaching vehicles are actually stopped before we start crossing. She did not, or she would be alive.
It's certainly prudent to do so, and any amount of self-preservation says you should, but is not checking if you're about to be run over actually negligent ? Edit: Also, if you as a pedestrian, stand at a 35mph road, at night, and wait for all approaching cars to stop before you start crossing, you will be standing there a very long time indeed.
If you've established that doing so is "certainly prudent", then I think it's reasonable that not doing so is negligent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being pompous. I never claimed to have those things. Re-read my original comment with my edit and you will see why I believe your statistics in fact do not answer the question of how meaningful Uber's fatality is. I doubt your expert testimony of pedantic statistics will trump common sense and the video evidence.
I have pointed out an error in your statistical reasoning. This is not a matter of pomposity or opinion. No insult was intended, and i retract the snark. My criticism of your statisitcal reasoning, however, stands.
It was more the calling me a "bad statistician", the "do not pass go", the "leave the details to the students", commenting on my understanding of statistics and probability, telling me to "do my homework" and telling me how to get the answer to a question I didn't pose.
I'm not upset and I don't hold it against you. I know the written word can sometimes be more difficult to interpret. I appreciate your retraction.
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…
What bad actions? If you mean an AI car killing a person - that's hardly "an action", that's an accident. Classic human-driven cars kill people every day yet are allowed to continue operation. Do people really expect self-driving cars to be not just more safe than classic but actually 100% safe?
By the way I myself don't drive at all and only use public transport (and a bicycle to ride the countryside). A major reason stopping me from driving is I can't logically understand how can I make sure I am not going to kill anybody if I drive at a speed considered normal (rather than something ridiculous like 15 km/h) and somebody may jump out right in front of my car suddenly (which is very very far from an impossible encounter).
I am totally car-phobic yet I really doubt suspending self-driving cars operation can make the roads more safe. I trust AIs much more than humans when it comes to subjects like this - they can fail occasionally (especially in guaranteed failure situations like when a pedestrian emerges right in front of you all of a sudden) but are seemingly less prone to fail than humans are.