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

21–30 of 190 posts

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

#21

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

amelius wrote: post #8
grey-area wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average humans have a higher error rate.

If you classify an image 30 times per second, then 0.001% is quite a large error rate.

Pay wall so I can’t read the article. But can someone comment on what 0.001% error means in real world scenarios?

To keep the maths easy, that’s 18 wrong frames/10min. So roughly 2/3 of a second.

If these images are spread out, maybe it’s fine. If it’s failing on certain types of images, then those images could be grouped and 2/3rds of a second is more than enough time for a serious failure.

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

#22

Post by taneq »

Iolaum wrote: post #15
amelius wrote: post #11

What will happen if a deep-learning bug is found in Tesla autopilot where it misclassifies a fire truck for a bridge? Will they ground all the Tesla cars remotely? Or disable autopilot remotely? Until they have gathered new training data and updated the software?

To add context. In Aviation, if they do find a bug in the software running an airplane's engine they do ground planes until they know more about impact and mitigation. Not saying cars should do the same, just that it's not absurd to consider it.

That’s the theory but the recent issues with Boeing show that practice doesn’t always follow.

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

#23

Post by LightG »

rpadovani wrote: post #5
amelius wrote: post #4

Yes, would you trust a car with an error rate of 0.001%?

Well, what's the baseline? I'm all in for a way to reduce any accident.

But there's a choice involved. Reduce baseline accidents, but increase being exposed to completely random events that will kill you.

Nope. I won't be part of that statistic.

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

#25

Post by londons_explore »

amelius wrote: post #11

What will happen if a deep-learning bug is found in Tesla autopilot where it misclassifies a fire truck for a bridge? Will they ground all the Tesla cars remotely? Or disable autopilot remotely? Until they have gathered new training data and updated the software?

Even when a critical problem is found, I can't think of any example of cars being disabled remotely - either through technical means or laws saying 'you may not drive this car'.

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

#26

Post by amelius »

londons_explore wrote: post #25
amelius wrote: post #11

What will happen if a deep-learning bug is found in Tesla autopilot where it misclassifies a fire truck for a bridge? Will they ground all the Tesla cars remotely? Or disable autopilot remotely? Until they have gathered new training data and updated the software?

Even when a critical problem is found, I can't think of any example of cars being disabled remotely - either through technical means or laws saying 'you may not drive this car'.

Another option is that they recall the cars.

It's not uncommon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehic...

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

#27

Post by kemitche »

LightG wrote: post #23
rpadovani wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what's the baseline? I'm all in for a way to reduce any accident.

But there's a choice involved. Reduce baseline accidents, but increase being exposed to completely random events that will kill you. Nope. I won't be part of that statistic.

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.

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

#28

Post by londons_explore »

tomp wrote: post #20
amatix wrote: post #7

And at the same time, the UK government is looking at reversing the GDPR review right for automated decisions: Article 22 guarantees that people can seek a human review of an algorithmic decision, such as an online decision to award a loan, or a recruitment aptitude test that uses algorithms to automatically filter candidates. In May, a government task force set up to look for deregulatory dividends from Brexit, led…

Is this another one of those GDPR articles that has no teeth? I cannot imagine how Google can keep running it’s spam filters, Facebook it’s automated bans, and Twitter its algorithmic feed, while abiding by this.

Presumably it means a spammer can send a spam email, and then when it goes into the spam folder, has the right to ask google to review that decision.

Sounds fair enough, especially if the spammer either has to pay the costs of the review (ie. a few dollars), or is limited to being only allowed one review per month/year to prevent abuse.

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

#29

Post by CJefferson »

amelius wrote: post #4

Yes, would you trust a car with an error rate of 0.001%?

The question is, what do you mean by "trust"?

Would I be happy for it to be driving around on the road? Probably.

Would I be happy for it to drive me, and it's 'my fault' if I don't notice it's gone wrong and kill someone? No.

So far Tesla (for example) seems nowhere near the point where they would accept responsibility for crashes -- they still always blame the driver for not paying attention.

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

#30

Post by hef19898 »

taneq wrote: post #22
Iolaum wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add context. In Aviation, if they do find a bug in the software running an airplane's engine they do ground planes until they know more about impact and mitigation. Not saying cars should do the same, just that it's not absurd to consider it.

That’s the theory but the recent issues with Boeing show that practice doesn’t always follow.

Boeing lobbied the FAA for way too long to avoid grounding of the fleet. It did happen so, after it turned out Boeing's SW fixes didn't work.

Also, just how that part of the 737MAX was certified is the real scandal, if you ask me. This is the literal example proofing the rule, so.

Post reply on HN