Arizona Government Suspends Uber's Self Driving Cars from Roads • Hacker News Board

Re: Arizona Government Suspends Uber's Self Driving Cars from Roads

#331

Post by johngalt » Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #220

mtgx wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point was that machines should be held at much higher standards than humans. This is a point I'e been making since the beginning myself. If you want self-driving cars to be accepted, they need to be at least 10x better than the best human drivers . Comments such as "self-driving cars only need to be 50% better than humans on average " are absolute nonsense. Humans will never go for that.

I don't think the risk of death from walking up the stairs is very high... so I'm assuming elevators are about equivalent, because people have definitely died in elevators.

This comment is precisely the point. You assume the risks are equivalent but they aren't even close. Roughly 50x as many people die on stairs vs elevators. Yet more people are afraid of elevators. Even subtly in your comment, notice how you minimize the risks of stairs and underscore the risks of elevators.

Similar thing with ladders. No one would ever get in an elevator if it had the same risk profile as a ladder. So why do we use ladders? Because there is a high degree of control. Humans are more comfortable with risk so long as there is a control/participation element.

Re: Arizona Government Suspends Uber's Self Driving Cars from Roads

#332

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 7:46 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #323

InitialLastName wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of that conditioning is that in many of those places, drivers are legally required to yield the right of way.

Something I learned in motorcycle class, very applicable here: Laws are for the living, or, yea you had right of way but you're still dead.

[deleted]

Re: Arizona Government Suspends Uber's Self Driving Cars from Roads

#333

Post by simion314 » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 11:55 AM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #324

simion314 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any math do back up that what I said is wrong? I can try to explain my point better but I see you are ignoring the math so maybe I should not waste my time.(we can reduce the problem to balls in a jar and make things easy) But think about this, if I killed a person in my first 10 km of driving, what is the chance that will kill 0 after the next 999990, would you bet that I will kill 0 or 1 , more then 10?

I think what you mean by "maths" is "formulae" or "equations". Before you get to the formulae, you have to figure out what you're trying to do. If the formulae are irrelevant to the problem at hand you will not find a solution. As to your question- I wouldn't bet at all. There is no way to know. Here's a problem from me: I give you the number 345. What are the chances that the next number I give you is going to be wi…

Your problem is not equivalent with what we were discussing about, you need to change it a bit like

I draw random numbers from 0 to Max and I get 345, what is P that next number N is in 100 range near 345?

P = 200/Max; in the assumption that Max >445;

For self driving cars, the probability that a car kills a person for 1 km or road driven is unknown, so you can call it X

Then my self driving car killed a person in first 10 km, What is the probability that a random event will happen in the first 10km from 10^9 km, is 10^(-8)

Say the self driving car would have the probability of killing N people for 10^9 km, this are random,independent events So the probability that a kill will happen in first 10km is N*10^-8,

I hope you notice my point that we can measure something, we do not need to wait for 10 or 100 people to be killed

We are not sure but we can say that is is a very small chance that I will not kill other person in my next 999 990km.

let me know if my logic is not correct, in statistics is easy to do mistakes.

Re: Arizona Government Suspends Uber's Self Driving Cars from Roads

#334

Post by hueving » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #312

hueving wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California remains the center because the companies are already headquartered there due to decisions made 50 years ago by the military for radar technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo That's despite it's often idiotic regulations driven by populist ignorance. A governance policy in favor of developments of new technology most certainly can have an impact over time. > Laissez-faire regulation and roll…

> California remains the center because the companies are already headquartered there due to decisions made 50 years ago by the military for radar technology: Poor argument. It doesn't explain why the auto industry didn't hire all the self driving car engineers to work in the Midwest or why the communications companies didn't hire them all to work on the East Coast. Google itself has offices all over the world, but i…

>If you really think that the military industrial complex

Please put some effort into reading before replying. The military funding for Stanford is one of the main reason so many tech companies started there. There are now massive network effects that make it the current tech capital but that doesn't mean new incentives can't start new tech hubs elsewhere.

You completely missed the boat about Uber being headquartered in California and still acting completely outside of sane ethical boundaries (their police spying program, etc). In other words, California rolls out the red carpet for these garbage tech companies already. The moral or consumer focused high-ground you are trying to imply doesn't exist. There is only NIMBYism.

Google built the testing headquarters in California because that's where their talent is at, nothing more, nothing less.