41–50 of 244 posts
Why don’t we require software engineers who work on self driving car software to go through licensing and certification. And then, if their code results in a death, they are liable and can have their license completely revoked, and they would be unable to work on self driving cars again.
Just like it relocated its testing to get a more "business friendly regulatory environment".
I have two problems with this article. 1) They make it appear that Uber is a car manufacturer. 2) Even though Uber has not been determined to be at fault, the author seems to want to make it that way anyway.
Every engineer on this project at Uber knows very well that their car completely failed in one of its most basic expected functions. It's incredibly obvious, and a number of independent experts have said as much. I'd be fairly surprised if there's any real appetite at Uber to continue with this now. It was never anywhere near their core competency.
I have two problems with this article. 1) They make it appear that Uber is a car manufacturer. 2) Even though Uber has not been determined to be at fault, the author seems to want to make it that way anyway.
The author is making a distinction between whether Uber was legally at fault (as stated in the article, likely not) versus whether the accident was avoidable. I agree with the author's position that the accident was likely avoidable.
1) The physics of driving isn't random, so it could be said that there are no accidents in autonomous driving, only oversights.
2) It would set a minimum performance level by making it prohibitively expensive to have a dangerous car. Those who test responsibly would have a low enough injury rate that they could deal with the risk by taking out suitable insurance.
3) It would provide a strong incentive to make the best car possible and not to take expedient shortcuts.
4) Over time automatically liability would become irrelevant if it asymptotically forces the injury rate to zero.
5) We have an historic opportunity to create a culture that will eliminate the danger of cars. It might have an increased short-term once off cost, but a huge long term payoff in the reduction of health costs and human misery. If we miss this opportunity we will be stuck with the long term cost of an industry that will be competitively driven towards poorer performance, potentially against the will of the majority of players, by the actions of a few.
"Move fast and break things" is exactly the opposite of what a responsible driver must do.
That'd be extremely foolish. And regardless of the dumb things the previous Uber CEO has done in the past and the big deal people are making over a $150 license, they have still hired some of the best engineers in the world.
You basically have to find the brightest-of-the-brightest to build AI... and Uber pays very well and puts plenty of effort into recruiting that talent.
Not to mention the massive PR and monetary risks that are inherent in killing people with your products. That would make any company highly risk-adverse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > But zooming out from the specifics of Herzberg's crash, the more fundamental point is this: conventional car crashes killed 37,461 in the United States in 2016, which works out to 1.18 deaths per 100 million miles driven. Uber announced that it had driven 2 million miles by December 2017 and is probably up to around 3 million miles today. If you do the math, that means that Uber's cars have killed…
You have a sample size of 1. Acknowledging that doesn't suddenly make the sample evidence of anything, good or bad :P. Almost all the miles driven are going to be in near-ideal circumstances (daylight, no rain, good road surface, driver familiar with normal road traffic conditions and drives the route regularly). I have nearly no insight into the uber death, but I gather it happened at night. It could easily be that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > But zooming out from the specifics of Herzberg's crash, the more fundamental point is this: conventional car crashes killed 37,461 in the United States in 2016, which works out to 1.18 deaths per 100 million miles driven. Uber announced that it had driven 2 million miles by December 2017 and is probably up to around 3 million miles today. If you do the math, that means that Uber's cars have killed…
You have a sample size of 1. Acknowledging that doesn't suddenly make the sample evidence of anything, good or bad :P. Almost all the miles driven are going to be in near-ideal circumstances (daylight, no rain, good road surface, driver familiar with normal road traffic conditions and drives the route regularly). I have nearly no insight into the uber death, but I gather it happened at night. It could easily be that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if they are at fault they should be punished, but you do realize that the expectation for self driving vehicles is not to eliminate all car related deaths, right? edit: wow this triggered some people. somehow 'if they are at fault they should be punished' got interpreted as 'they are not at fault and should not be punished'
Driverless car programs should really not be having more than 1 fatality per 100 million miles. Uber is currently at 1 per 3 million miles.
Why don’t we require software engineers who work on self driving car software to go through licensing and certification. And then, if their code results in a death, they are liable and can have their license completely revoked, and they would be unable to work on self driving cars again.
- Expecting engineers to always write perfect code is insane. Mistakes happen. - If bad code makes it into production, that is a systemic failure not an individual one (Why didn't the bug get caught in code review, QA, etc.) - No one is going to want to work on a project where a single failure can taint their career. - What if I use a 3rd party lib and that is where the bug is. Who is at fault then? What if the code…
Yes, there are reviews, QA, and all of that. So, yes, there is no single person responsible (exceptions apply).
But there is no excuse for using 3rd party libs. Just don't use it. If you not know: do not use it.
That is the reason, why certifications are for. The same rules apply for medical and other areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > But zooming out from the specifics of Herzberg's crash, the more fundamental point is this: conventional car crashes killed 37,461 in the United States in 2016, which works out to 1.18 deaths per 100 million miles driven. Uber announced that it had driven 2 million miles by December 2017 and is probably up to around 3 million miles today. If you do the math, that means that Uber's cars have killed…
You have a sample size of 1. Acknowledging that doesn't suddenly make the sample evidence of anything, good or bad :P. Almost all the miles driven are going to be in near-ideal circumstances (daylight, no rain, good road surface, driver familiar with normal road traffic conditions and drives the route regularly). I have nearly no insight into the uber death, but I gather it happened at night. It could easily be that…