Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#111

Post by username_my1 »

mplewis wrote: post #52
username_my1 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is to have self driving safer than our average driver who’s always texting and driving, sometimes driving under the influence and sometimes just too stressed to pay attention to the road. Self driving cars will make fatal mistakes but I have no doubt that tesla very soon will be able to be safer than the average driver. Plus the more autonomous vehicles on the road the more safer it is. Finally currently tra…

Ok. But this idealism doesn’t work when Tesla has clear failure modes that simply shouldn’t happen during normal driving. Humans generally do not give their cars haircuts by slamming them under a stopped cargo truck. They do not generally smash straight into stationary emergency vehicles. We can’t handwave basic safety issues away by saying “in aggregate, they perform better than humans in most conditions.” The basic…

why doesn't it work? isn't all our society always abstracting away the individual stories behind statistics? (crime is down by 10% ! GDP is up by 0.2%, birthrate is down by xx).

we're used to it and we're happy about it and we use it to make decisions (buy house now, move to a new city ...).

Plus in those rare cases that you mentioned at least the same system will be feedback the incident to make sure that this won't happen again in the future... so in a morbid way there is a way to learn from such fatal incidents ... you can't really say that about such incident if the driver was a human.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#112

Post by esalman »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #83
rootusrootus wrote: post #76

I've lost count of the number of people I've talked to who think that neural nets means we've created brains that will just magically learn how to do new tasks. So we just need more training and then automated is just around the corner. Tesla, et al do not have the luxury of ignorance to explain that away however, they know what the technology is and is not currently capable of, but they don't want to admit it.

Its all artificial but no Intelligence. Statistical pattern matching, no matter how sophisticated, does not understand "why" from conceptually thinking about a space/time model of the world as we humans do.

Proposition to change the term "artificial intelligence" to "learned habits".

There are a lot of tasks that we humans do the same way as a machine does- repeating a set of mental and/or physical patterns until it becomes second nature to us. Those are called "habits" and those are precisely what machines are good at doing.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#113

Post by gwern »

> Businesses are also shifting their focus away from “AI-as-a-service” vendors who promise to carry out tasks straight out of the box, like magic. Instead, they are spending more money on data-preparation software, according to Brendan Burke, a senior analyst at PitchBook. He says that pure-play AI companies like Palantir Technologies Inc. and C3.ai Inc. “have achieved less-than-outstanding outcomes,” while data science companies like Databricks Inc. “are achieving higher valuations and superior outcomes.”

Palantir is now a "pure-play AI company"? (And, for that matter, a market cap of $50b is 'less than outstanding'?)

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#114

Post by gamblor956 »

lastofthemojito wrote: post #79
dreamcompiler wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Munro sat down with Musk and enthusiastically praised FSD but complained about how roads were often improperly painted. Musk--to his credit--said the car needed to work safely even in the presence of paint errors. (Video is on Munro's YT channel.) Munro is very critical of many aspects of car design; I cannot understand why he's such a fan of FSD. I tried FSD on the $200/month plan and dropped it: It makes the car un…

> Munro is very critical of many aspects of car design; I cannot understand why he's such a fan of FSD. Maybe due to personal profit? https://old.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/kxj0or/twitter_s...

TLDR: Munro admits to owning a bunch of Tesla stock, and there is a drastic change in his opinions of Tesla before he owned Tesla stock vs after.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#115

Post by Apocryphon »

leesec wrote: post #101
hef19898 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how people ignoring regulation, that developed during decades for very valid reasons, usually do so to further businesses and projects that benefit greatly by doing so. Tesla is one example when it comes to self-driving, Uber another one when it come to the Taxi business. All for the greater good of course.

You think Uber doesn't provide a good service to the world? You are in favor of Taxi/Medallion monopolies?

Perhaps it can be simultaneously true that Uber is providing a good service to customers against an outdated and badly-run industry, while they are doing many bad things.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#116

Post by rootusrootus »

candiodari wrote: post #107
gibsonf1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its all artificial but no Intelligence. Statistical pattern matching, no matter how sophisticated, does not understand "why" from conceptually thinking about a space/time model of the world as we humans do.

That's doesn't seem true. In the short term AI algorithms clearly understand why they do things. Yes, the time horizon is obviously shorter (not in games, but in the real world, sure), but the same can often be said of humans. If you see humans responding to animals that don't use eyes (e.g. bats, insects) fuckups are a constant. We are very bad at interacting with anything that doesn't have something similar to our…

> And third, the world has almost entirely been rebuilt to compensate for human observation flaws.

I don't entirely agree with what I think your point is. Fundamentally, humans are pretty great at using context to work their way through a variety of unfamiliar situations. The work we do on intersections is about tuning. Even in a bad intersection with horrible flaws, 99.9% or more of all humans navigating it will be successful. The reason we keep tuning them is because our tolerance for death is zero. 1 death for every 100M miles driven is pretty good, but many people still find it completely intolerable. We're going to keep tuning.

But I don't think that means that making roads safely navigable by algorithms is going to be a simple matter of tuning them.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#117

Post by rpadovani »

LightG wrote: post #31
kemitche wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We make those choices all the time. Taking a plane instead of driving is similar. You lose direct control, but it's orders of magnitude safer. I'll take a 0.001% chance of death over a 0.1% chance every time.

I'll take 0.1% chance of death which I (arguably) can control, over a 0.001% chance of death which I absolutely cannot control at all. It's so clear to me. Yes, taking a plane is similar, but I only take that risk a couple of times a year. The 0.1% (to me) is a probability number as I have some control over each event. The probability is so low that it likely never will happen. The 0.001% number is an eventual outcom…

That's not how statistic works

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#118

Post by ClumsyPilot »

leesec wrote: post #101
hef19898 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how people ignoring regulation, that developed during decades for very valid reasons, usually do so to further businesses and projects that benefit greatly by doing so. Tesla is one example when it comes to self-driving, Uber another one when it come to the Taxi business. All for the greater good of course.

You think Uber doesn't provide a good service to the world? You are in favor of Taxi/Medallion monopolies?

"You don't like you country being occupied by Soviet Union? Would you prefer Nazi Germany instead?"

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#119

Post by rpadovani »

gameswithgo wrote: post #17
grey-area wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average humans have a higher error rate.

For me the question is how high is the error rate for a non drunk non sleepy non elderly non reckless human, since that is what my car would replace. in my 20s you would need to bring the reckless back in.

Problem is, you are not alone on the road. And if somebody else does something really stupid, you can die as a consequence, without any chance to avoid it.

We are definitely not there yet, but I think of myself as a decent driver, and some assistant tools on high-end models are way better (just faster, probably) than me predicting stuff. For the first year this summer, I've driven a car that was quicker than I in an emergency break situation: while I started breaking, it depressed the pedal, and I was quite surprised, 'cause the car in front of me didn't begin breaking yet.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#120

Post by ajja »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #83
rootusrootus wrote: post #76

I've lost count of the number of people I've talked to who think that neural nets means we've created brains that will just magically learn how to do new tasks. So we just need more training and then automated is just around the corner. Tesla, et al do not have the luxury of ignorance to explain that away however, they know what the technology is and is not currently capable of, but they don't want to admit it.

Its all artificial but no Intelligence. Statistical pattern matching, no matter how sophisticated, does not understand "why" from conceptually thinking about a space/time model of the world as we humans do.

or even not that -

Microsoft’s Kate Crawford: ‘AI is neither artificial nor intelligent’ (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/06/microsoft...)

Post reply on HN