The self-driving car is a red herring • Hacker News Board

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#271

Post by barnacled » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

simplyinfinity wrote: post #208

barnacled wrote: post #18

I like Filip Piekniewski's take on this [0] - deep learning is appropriate for environments where the cost of mistakes is low (or the errors are reversible) and you're able to 'average them out'. Self-driving cars are absolutely not in that category. "If your errors are irreversible and you can't average them out, and your application is in open domain where there will never be a shortage of out of distribution sampl…

> For me it's obvious the real issue are the edge cases - of course a self-driving car does fine in 99%+ of cases, but those small % of outlier cases are the ones where people potentially die. I suspect an entirely different approach is required to supplement/supplant the deep learning one and fully autonomous vehicles are still quite some way off. Why is that every time the safety of self driving cars is brought up,…

I think you misinterpret what I said, it is the edge case scenarios where fatalities tend to occur. Of course in humans that can be due to drunkeness or distraction or confusion, nobody is claiming human drivers are perfect, but if it is the 'weird' situations that tend to result in accidents and deep learning tends to make mistakes in 'weird' circumstances, that doesn't fill me with confidence.

Also it is not at all obvious that self driving cars will do better than humans. Perhaps they will, but it isn't just about numbers. As I alluded to in another comment, imagine if they had 50% of the human death rate but it was all small children and occurred seemingly randomly. Do you think that would be acceptable and a better outcome? These things are less black and white than they might seem.

Another factor is that with deep learning it is fully a black box. It is very difficult to understand WHY a particular course of action was taken, whereas in human cases you can usually determine this. The why might also be limited, e.g. 'human child was mislabelled as stop sign' or similar, which just causes further questions.

The fact that you have scenarios the car will definitely not know how to handle combined with a deep level of inscrutability makes it difficult to have confidence in issues being resolved or the technology improving on a safety basis.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#272

Post by dionidium » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

paul_f wrote: post #143

sirsar wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA has an order of magnitude more population than is required for functioning public transit. But you're right they don't have the density. The key is to realize the cars themselves killed density . Parking lots, parking spaces, and extra lanes all conspire to push humans and human spaces further apart. This then makes walking less feasible, cars more required, and more space required to accommodate those cars in a f…

The car did not directly kill density, it enabled people to choose less density.

There is absolutely nothing like a free market in housing. Many low-density suburbs would already have naturally densified if they were allowed to. The reason they have not is that it's illegal. People aren't choosing less density. They're banning density.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#273

Post by decafninja » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

ciconia wrote: post #199

kanox wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish people would stop claiming that the solution to cars is walking or public transport. I don't have a car either but claiming that people should "stop driving" is not a serious approach. Cars are extremely useful and are not going anywhere. They have problems like carbon emissions and being extremely dangerous but those will have to be solved while preserving the fundamental utility of a cars: They are in…

I don't think anybody is suggesting that. But if public transport is better, if there are safe paved roads for cyclists, and if city center become safer for pedestrians, then maybe people will buy less cars and drive less miles...

The problem is:

1.) Public transportation in the US is at best, tolerable. Usually far worse. Not just in terms of coverage and utility, but in terms of cleanliness and safety. People use it because they have no other choice that is affordable. Get it to a level of quality like Tokyo or Seoul and more people would use it because they actually like it. I doubt that will happen anytime soon due to cultural issues, unless people are willing to tolerate draconian levels of enforcement.

2.) Bicycles are awesome, but you have to contend with precipitation, sweat, and theft. E-bikes help somewhat with the sweat, but then you have "traditionalists" that are trying to fight tooth and nail to ban them, and they are even more inviting theft targets. And you can still work up quite a sweat on an e-bike. Rain is still a problem.

3.) Living close to city centers is abominably expensive. People can drive in, or take public transportation in. But then go back to #1 in regards to public transportation.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#274

Post by decafninja » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

kangnkodos wrote: post #253

This article completely ignores China. In the US, if one pedestrian is killed by a self-driving car, the losses are unacceptable. This is true even if thousands of lives are saved. In China, the opposite is true. If thousands of lives are saved, and one pedestrian dies, the self-driving car is a success. China will be the first country to see widespread deployment of self-driving cars for this reason.

Also China would probably move heaven and earth if necessary to get things done. Quickly. Maybe not so perfectly safely though.

In the US, getting approval to construct a 10'x10' dog park requires moving heaven and earth to get permits signed off to even start planning, and then come the lawsuits.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#275

Post by poulsbohemian » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

abainbridge wrote: post #112

Kaze404 wrote: post #81

I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…

Agreed, but self-driving cars would enable self driving buses and they could be great. One problem with buses is that paying the drivers is expensive. As a result buses need to be big to amortize the cost of the driver across lots of users. But big buses don't work well in low demand times of the day. The only option is to run them less frequently, which sucks for users. And big buses don't fit down small streets. An…

>I'd still prefer to walk or cycle, but I'm probably biased because I live in a warm, dry and flat part of the UK and don't have kids.

I'm glad you said this because it's a key point so many in this thread appear to miss: what works for one person or locale is not the solution for another, therefore cars aren't going away but this does not negate the legitimacy of bikes or trains either.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#276

Post by colinmhayes » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

Grimm1 wrote: post #268

Teever wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the hyper-individualism that has been cultivated in certain segments of the American population for partisan political purposes is ultimately the greatest threat that American society faces. It corrodes all aspects of society when a sizable population will place themselves above all else. The ironic part is that except for a thin slice of the wealthy it doesn't even benefit the people who espouse it the…

Individualism != selfish and ignorant. I'm highly individualist. I stay inside, wear a mask everywhere I go and listed to experts like Dr.Fauci on the subject of Covid. That's just one example. There's a large amount of the population that lack empathy and are willfully ignorant. Individualism may be the cover word but what you actually mean is "hyper ignorance and selfishness"

As A. Savage says, collectivism and autonomy are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure most Americans know that though. If Americans self identify as individualists and believe that means being anti-collectivism then isn't individualism, or at least the ideas of individualist thinkers, partly to blame for our cultural bias against collectivism? Maybe I should've said it's America's culture of toxic individualism rather than run of the mill individualism.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#277

Post by marketingPro » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

question000 wrote: post #69

marketingPro wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a website that tracks food costs. Not sure if you are looking for Data or a psychic. I do the former.

Ok why do you believe this if you can't make one verifiable prediction that it will happen? Will it happens tomorrow? In 20 years? In 5 months? It's just a feeling you have that isn't backed by data. I can't really ever disprove this because you're not really making any claim. This is every FED conversation on HN. People totally believe hyperinflation is "just around the corner" but it never happens only standard nor…

Efficiency is everything. Give it a Google.

Also, why are you discounting the last 100 years of federal reserve policy? We obviously had greater than 10x inflation. Is 30% inflation in 8 months not considered hyperinflation?

My kids bank account is 30% less valuable now. I'm not going to fight over definitions that 30% inflation isn't enough to be considered hyperinflation.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#278

Post by hungryforcodes » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

Grimm1 wrote: post #268

Teever wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the hyper-individualism that has been cultivated in certain segments of the American population for partisan political purposes is ultimately the greatest threat that American society faces. It corrodes all aspects of society when a sizable population will place themselves above all else. The ironic part is that except for a thin slice of the wealthy it doesn't even benefit the people who espouse it the…

Individualism != selfish and ignorant. I'm highly individualist. I stay inside, wear a mask everywhere I go and listed to experts like Dr.Fauci on the subject of Covid. That's just one example. There's a large amount of the population that lack empathy and are willfully ignorant. Individualism may be the cover word but what you actually mean is "hyper ignorance and selfishness"

But that definitely describes hyper individualism in America.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#279

Post by bluedino » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

sailingparrot wrote: post #228

bluedino wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Between being crammed in the cars, the mentally unstable accosting you, the lack of cleanliness and the occasional assault Three of the four of those are things you don't hear people complaining about with the transit system in Japan because of the culture differences in the USA. How can that be fixed, here?

Calling this a "culture differences" is quite the understatement, unless you include politics, access to healthcare and other things under "culture". I do agree that there is definitly a cultural component to this too however.

Not all of the problems with public transit are caused by the mentally ill. It's a very small amount.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#280

Post by jsinai » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #150

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. That's why it works in NYC and doesn't work in Los Angeles. But that means it's not just a matter of building mass transit. First you have to build taller buildings. And even then there are going to be places where it's just not happening. It doesn't matter how you change the zoning, nobody is going to build skyscrapers in Pine Blu…

> The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. This just doesn't seem to be true. It probably needs some density (think "town", not "farmland") but the fundamental prerequisite is a commitment to planning and building public transit infrastructure, rather than automobile focused infrastructure. Lot's of relatively low density places in Europe, Japan, etc. have very functional…

Precisely. And the second fundamental prerequisite is frequency. Make public transport frequent enough, and with privileged access (eg bus lanes) and it will be more convenient than private cars.