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

31–40 of 190 posts

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

#31

Post by LightG »

kemitche wrote: post #27
LightG wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 outcome number. "Run the experiment X amount of times, and death will happen 0.001% of the time". And it's more relevant than flying as we drive so much more.

Nope! Thanks!

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

#32

Post by DrNuke »

Point is, we/they all knew the unavoidable AI’s flaws way before the s*it hit the fan, the underlying sci-fi assumptions undermining the science… and the problem is, some states’ wild de-regulation allowing deployment in public, commonal spaces (real and virtual) being managed like a gigantic theme park and joe mcjoes becoming the guinea pigs for such, well-advised experiments.

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

#33

Post by ClumsyPilot »

hef19898 wrote: post #19
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.

Well, to be honest something like Tesla's Autopilot would never have been certified in Aerospace anyway. And yes, the question of what authorities would do in such a case is a valid one. It seems like authorities are struggling with functions like that, would it be simply hardware, e.g. faulty airbag sensors, recalls would have been already be issued.

" It seems like authorities are struggling"

I would rather describe it as sleeping at the wheel, passed out drunk and having pissed their pants after vomiting a bottle of hard liquir.

Okay, maybe i got carried away with the metaphor, but you get the idea

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

#34

Post by gitfan86 »

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.

Anytime you get on the road you are exposing yourself to the possibility that a suicidal or drunk or elderly person with dementia will kill you.

Personally, I would like to have very rigorous driving tests for old people and remove licenses for people with DUIs. The obvious question then is, how are old people and drunks supposed to get around. Self driving cars seem like an option eventually. It makes you safer compared to the alternative, which is we generally wait until someone is killed before we permanently remove someone's license.

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

#35

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#36

Post by bsenftner »

CJefferson wrote: post #29
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.

That's the key tell right there: Musk always blames the customer and never takes responsibility.

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

#38

Post by LightG »

gitfan86 wrote: post #34
LightG wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anytime you get on the road you are exposing yourself to the possibility that a suicidal or drunk or elderly person with dementia will kill you. Personally, I would like to have very rigorous driving tests for old people and remove licenses for people with DUIs. The obvious question then is, how are old people and drunks supposed to get around. Self driving cars seem like an option eventually. It makes you safer comp…

I have some chance of controlling the outcome of the suicidal/drunk/elderly driver situation.

I have no chance of controlling a buggy AI.

I like my chances better :-)

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

#39

Post by gameswithgo »

machinelearning wrote: post #37

Question for people here: Is it justifiable to accept these flaws in the short-term if it results in a car that has a lower-error rate than human drivers in the medium/long-term?

There is no need for us to accept the flaws in the short term. People can keep developing this tech without us mass adopting it first.

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

#40

Post by hef19898 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #33
hef19898 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be honest something like Tesla's Autopilot would never have been certified in Aerospace anyway. And yes, the question of what authorities would do in such a case is a valid one. It seems like authorities are struggling with functions like that, would it be simply hardware, e.g. faulty airbag sensors, recalls would have been already be issued.

" It seems like authorities are struggling" I would rather describe it as sleeping at the wheel, passed out drunk and having pissed their pants after vomiting a bottle of hard liquir. Okay, maybe i got carried away with the metaphor, but you get the idea

Funny how someone on the internet can translate my understanding of "struggling" into plain English! Appreciate it!

Disclaimer: I really try to work on my ability to word stuff more diplomatically. HN is a good training ground for that!

Post reply on HN