41–50 of 190 posts
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?
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.
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?
This comparison gets me the most. People bringing up human error rate vs machine error rate. They’re not comparable at all. And it will be evident when you have majority autonomous cars on the road. Human errors are more or less RANDOM. Machine errors are NOT.
We don't have a good frame of reference for how machines might behave with their failures, which means that accidents could be worse than they would be otherwise.
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?
This comparison gets me the most. People bringing up human error rate vs machine error rate. They’re not comparable at all. And it will be evident when you have majority autonomous cars on the road. Human errors are more or less RANDOM. Machine errors are NOT.
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?
This comparison gets me the most. People bringing up human error rate vs machine error rate. They’re not comparable at all. And it will be evident when you have majority autonomous cars on the road. Human errors are more or less RANDOM. Machine errors are NOT.
If I can reduce the error rate by 90%, but the remaining 10% are "random" (whatever that means), is that worse than not reducing the error rate?
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?
Unlike autopilot which could still be crappy after 10 years
Yet we have made them illegal after some rather nasty precedents. Seems like hsitory repeats itself
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?
36,096 deaths in 2019 in U.S. ~1.3 million worldwide (I couldn't find injury statistics this morning)
If the flaw is found before someone dies from it I'm not concerned. If 1 person dies instead of 10 I'm all for it. (I'd take 2x better than humans any day)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comparison gets me the most. People bringing up human error rate vs machine error rate. They’re not comparable at all. And it will be evident when you have majority autonomous cars on the road. Human errors are more or less RANDOM. Machine errors are NOT.
also, human failure modes are better understood, and can be better anticipated by e.g. you can still have a somewhat predictive mental model of how a swerving drunk drive might behave. We don't have a good frame of reference for how machines might behave with their failures, which means that accidents could be worse than they would be otherwise.
Yes, would you trust a car with an error rate of 0.001%?
It does not even work in difficult situations and busy chaotic streets, and that's when all the crashes happen.
It's like the statistics that says sharks only attack near beaches - that where 99.99% of people are!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I considered this before posting, but I think that human disengagements are an important supervisory signal for the model. You can’t hire enough safety drivers to scale this process and releasing it is the fastest way to get there. Simulations are not going to get you all the way because you can’t simulate the real world perfectly. Do you have any thoughts on how to develop this without releasing it?
I am sorry but I sincerely hope you are never made responsible for the release of anything remotely safety-critical.
Please re-read what you wrote. You are saying that because a business does not have enough money/resources to scale a process in real-world conditions that the solution is to release something and verifying in the real-world, on a public road, risking real human lifes?
If you don't have enough money to test it then you don't have an actual product/business.