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

91–100 of 190 posts

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

#91

Post by leesec »

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

It's funny how super pro regulation people never consider the lives lost caused by slow regulation. If Tesla solves driving it will lead to tens of thousands of lives saved a year. Since 2015 there have been 20 deaths in 16 accidents related to autopilot, globally. Doesn't sound like a lot in comparison to highway death numbers, over 6 years.

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

#93

Post by ChefboyOG »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #83
rootusrootus wrote: post #76

I've lost count of the number of people I've talked to who think that neural nets means we've created brains that will just magically learn how to do new tasks. So we just need more training and then automated is just around the corner. Tesla, et al do not have the luxury of ignorance to explain that away however, they know what the technology is and is not currently capable of, but they don't want to admit it.

Its all artificial but no Intelligence. Statistical pattern matching, no matter how sophisticated, does not understand "why" from conceptually thinking about a space/time model of the world as we humans do.

Even if this is the case, why does it matter?

If the explicit goal is to create a human intellect, then sure, there's a really interesting conversation there—one that is happening constantly in the DL/AI research community, in which virtually no one believes that we're close to AGI or that current deep learning is going to achieve it.

But that's explicitly not the goal that 99.9% of neural networks are designed with. Their traditional use case is where they excel: programmatically approximating functions that are exceedingly hard to approximate manually.

This includes but is not limited to image recognition, speech synthesis, recommendation (including search), fraud detection, ETA prediction, even medicinal chemistry.

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

#94

Post by DoingIsLearning »

whimsicalism wrote: post #89
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t hire enough safety drivers to scale this process and releasing it is the fastest way to get there. 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…

> I am sorry but I sincerely hope you are never made responsible for the release of anything remotely safety-critical. Wild to infer that from someone asking a hypothetical ethical question. Why are so many on this site so aggro?

Had to google aggro, no aggression intended at all, but I frankly found the severity of GP question too scary to be considered.

> I considered this before posting ...

To me this is not someone asking a hypothetical but someone who is aware that what they are about to write is controversial yet are still considering it to be the best way forward. I happened to strongly disagree with that.

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

#95

Post by spywaregorilla »

kevingadd wrote: post #77
spywaregorilla wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that in aggregate they do kill fewer humans, then this is a rare instance of an actual trolley problem. Do you want to kill fewer people by changing the norms and reasons?

Big assumption to make if it turns out the numbers and data don't scale up once you do large-scale deployment!

You're not wrong. This should be done with great care.

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

#96

Post by revscat »

gameswithgo wrote: post #16
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?

This has already been happening but self driving enthusiasts just keep thinking it is great. And regulators have done very little and otherwise smart people like Sandy Munro get extremely mad at what little regulators have hinted at. It is wild times.

It is great. I own a Model S with autopilot, and have since early 2018. I have driven it across some dozen states, and two Canadian provinces. It is far perfect, but it is very, very good, and makes long drives much less stressful and tiresome.

And there have been at least two incidences that I can recall where Autopilot saved me from a wreck.

I would not choose to go back, and would buy it again without hesitation.

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

#97

Post by hef19898 »

leesec wrote: post #91
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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

It's funny how super pro regulation people never consider the lives lost caused by slow regulation. If Tesla solves driving it will lead to tens of thousands of lives saved a year. Since 2015 there have been 20 deaths in 16 accidents related to autopilot, globally. Doesn't sound like a lot in comparison to highway death numbers, over 6 years.

It's funny how people ignoring regulation, that developed during decades for very valid reasons, usually do so to further businesses and projects that benefit greatly by doing so. Tesla is one example when it comes to self-driving, Uber another one when it come to the Taxi business. All for the greater good of course.

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

#98

Post by revscat »

username_my1 wrote: post #51
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?

The idea is to have self driving safer than our average driver who’s always texting and driving, sometimes driving under the influence and sometimes just too stressed to pay attention to the road. Self driving cars will make fatal mistakes but I have no doubt that tesla very soon will be able to be safer than the average driver. Plus the more autonomous vehicles on the road the more safer it is. Finally currently tra…

This seems to be a reasonable take to me. Systems like Autopilot make driving safer. I'm worried that the conventional wisdom on HN is (a) that systems like Autopilotmust be perfect, which will never be attained, and (b) extremely loathe to recognize the times Autopilot has saved lives.

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

#99

Post by michaelbuckbee »

tdrdt wrote: post #80

It seems the flaws are too binary. 90% of the results are great, the other 10% absolute trash. You can see this everywhere. For example those app that generate a non existing person. A lot of times the results are great except for that one spot which makes the overall result useless. Another example is the OptiX denoiser (NVidia). You can get very nice renders in a few seconds which speeds up the workflow. But every…

There's the notion that over time the flaws of the previous generation of technology are held up as traditional artifacts.

Things like:

- the "warm" sound of vinyl records. - nostalgia for early myspace, tumblr, geocities, web design - faux edison lightbulbs - low vs high frame rate movies

I wonder if the flaws of all the current ML techniques will eventually be thought of similarly.

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

#100

Post by buitreVirtual »

ChefboyOG wrote: post #93
gibsonf1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its all artificial but no Intelligence. Statistical pattern matching, no matter how sophisticated, does not understand "why" from conceptually thinking about a space/time model of the world as we humans do.

Even if this is the case, why does it matter? If the explicit goal is to create a human intellect, then sure, there's a really interesting conversation there—one that is happening constantly in the DL/AI research community, in which virtually no one believes that we're close to AGI or that current deep learning is going to achieve it. But that's explicitly not the goal that 99.9% of neural networks are designed with.…

Entirely agree. The problem is that most people don't understand that and easily fall prey to thinking that AI is a magical black box that can solve any problem you throw at it. In no small part because of all the hype by salespeople and the media. The reality is that NNs are great but only for some types of problems AND where there is a high tolerance to false positives and negatives. Clearly, this does not include problems where safety is critical (unless you can really demonstrate that AI does better at safeguarding than humans AND you can convince the public to not be scared).
Post reply on HN