Machine learning and AI are data hungry algorithms and the concern is there isn't enough "emergency situation" data. Also a detector can not have both a 100% probability of detection and 0% probability of false alarm. You have to sacrifice one for the other and that is usually influenced by weighted probabilities and priorities (e.g., a smooth ride).
Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
71–80 of 244 posts
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#72"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 people at roughly 25 times the rate of a typical human-driven car in the United States." Wow there goes that "safer than human drivers" argument.
Driverless cars are also being tested in relatively nice driving conditions. People, on the other hand, drive in all sorts of conditions. X deaths per Y easy driving miles is going to translate to many more than X deaths per Y representative driving miles.
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#73"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 people at roughly 25 times the rate of a typical human-driven car in the United States." Wow there goes that "safer than human drivers" argument.
Well maybe not currently safer than human drivers. I don't think any sound-minded person would claim that they will never be.
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Software should try to learn from human drivers Yeah, that doesn't work though. Basically because you would need to have an excellent situation representation to really understand the drivers' reactions to outside events. But that does not exist. Perception and situation representation are key to mastering the driving task, and they both differ greatly between humans and machines.
Basically because you would need to have an excellent situation representation to really understand the drivers' reactions to outside events. But that does not exist. This is the #1 reason I'm sceptical about self-driving cars becoming ubiquitous any time soon. Clearly they have potential advantages over a human driver in terms of not being tired or distracted, better sensors and better reaction times, but their judg…
Bingo. This is the difference between "intelligence" and "artificial intelligence". AI as we know it today is pattern recognition. There is no ability to form even the most basic of concepts. They may have incredible sensors, but these driverless cars hardly have the intelligence of a dragonfly.
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#75"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 people at roughly 25 times the rate of a typical human-driven car in the United States." Wow there goes that "safer than human drivers" argument.
I think focusing on the safety statistics is somewhat of a red herring. Uber wins when you get hung up on how well its self-driving cars drive, because that's something that they can improve. Instead, I think we should focus on the fact that these dangerous machines are being operated by chronically irresponsible companies and because cars in general have issues, not because we expect them to be less safe than human drivers.
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#76"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 people at roughly 25 times the rate of a typical human-driven car in the United States." Wow there goes that "safer than human drivers" argument.
With one data point, you can't extrapolate much. This is misuse of statistics.
Consider if there was a new lottery and you weren't sure what the odds of winning were. You play it three weeks in a row and the third time you win a million dollars. Conveniently, no one else tries the new lottery yet.
Does it follow then that the odds of winning a million dollars are 1 in 3? Or should you play it a few more times before you declare to all that one in three plays will make one a millionaire?
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically because you would need to have an excellent situation representation to really understand the drivers' reactions to outside events. But that does not exist. This is the #1 reason I'm sceptical about self-driving cars becoming ubiquitous any time soon. Clearly they have potential advantages over a human driver in terms of not being tired or distracted, better sensors and better reaction times, but their judg…
Bingo. This is the difference between "intelligence" and "artificial intelligence". AI as we know it today is pattern recognition. There is no ability to form even the most basic of concepts. They may have incredible sensors, but these driverless cars hardly have the intelligence of a dragonfly.
I challenge you to prove that you are capable of more than recognizing patterns.
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#78Why 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…
This is a straw man. Nobody is asking for perfection. What is needed are processes and regulations that ensure a high confidence that companies with self-driving cars have done the best that can be expected of them to ensure their vehicles are safe and that they have met a minimum bar in that regard as well. There are many industries where this already happens, there's no reason to single out self-driving automobiles as being impossible to regulate properly.
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#79I 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.
Yeah I'd be fairly concerned about them lying to or simply bribing the police too.
Re: Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Of course it's evidence of something! Suppose, as a massive oversimplification, Uber's self-driving cars crash with some constant probability P for every mile driven (i.e. a Bernoulli process). We now have learned at least one thing with absolute confidence: P > 0. The first mile driven before the accident, of course, also showed P But beyond absolute certainty , we also have a better idea of the actual value of P. (…
You obviously want to be technical. Technically you are correct. However, the evidence that this car is a worse driver than a human is currently so weak we're both wasting time talking about it. We need more of the stuff for it to be worth considering.
Your pedantry has managed to upset me and I would encourage you to be a little more understanding of people using language in the way it is used outside of the world of mathematics. Walking into a practical discussion of safety with an existence proof of all things is disrespectful of the fact that lives and enormous quantities of human attention are at stake.
Obviously, technically everything is evidence of something. I know that. Using the language in that sense is not going to help.