I put pretty much the entire "Delete Facebook" noise into the same mental bucket as your post. Facebook only gets what you and others give them. Don't want them to have information? Say less and click less frequently. Deleting Facebook won't keep other people from saying things about you, though it will prevent you from correcting hurtful untruths. Either way, on the whole, the only thing you can really control is what you do or say on Facebook, which means the best thing to do is to keep Facebook, but use it less.
Wouldn't "Delete Facebook" keep people who have Facebook now from divulging information about others to Facebook ? Some of the information, maybe ? Does elementary ethics have any value for you ?
It's not like there aren't huge testing facilities all over the place.
Name 10.
If there are such facilities, this "Uber" belonged there, not on public roads. If there aren't, Uber is all the more evil for not even testing in controlled conditions before unleashing their dangerous vehicles on public roads.
Why is Uber's ability to test "all the edge cases" worth the lives of human beings ?
So tell me, how well do humans deal with difficult edge cases? Can you quantify it?
Measure pedestrians killed by cars where a professional was not overseeing the "driver". Self-driving cars : nearly zero miles driven in this scenario (on public roads). Humans kill about one pedestrian in every 600 million miles driven.
This metric works perfectly for self-driving cars. Except that we have very little data.
Similarly you can measure for other problems - like driving off a cliff, or causing squished car pile-up on a motorways with fast driving cars etc.
Before selling to Facebook, do you have evidence that Whatsapp was as much of a privacy violator as Facebook ? Or a significant fraction thereof ?
They never had advertisements, and promised they will never have. They had subscription charges - though didn't insist on the charges for some countries. I know people who refused to pay up and hence their Whatsapp account got disabled. Whatsapp is not one of the major companies, AFAIK, which gave people free stuff in exchange of raping their privacy.
In selling, Acton may not have had much of a choice. If majority shareholders decided to sell, he might as well get a good price for his share. Even if he had a choice, calling it "where that's EXACTLY what he did, to every WhatsApp user" is going too far because, say, you giving me up to terrorists for money does not make you a terrorist. Merely a greedy mercenary.
Not exactly easy to find the cutoff point. Just FEWER doesn't tell the whole story. What if humans worsen as drivers due to lack of practice as a lot of driving is done by machines ? Also, when in urban settings pedestrians cross roads - there is a lot of "communication" between the driver and pedestrian. We don't want to kill innocents even if they are FEWER.
The pedestrian uses body language - they could also shout in slow speed scenarios though complicated sentences are ruled out for any speeds that can kill or maim. Pedestrians can indicate with their body language that they have perceived the car but they intend to assert their "right" to cross the road anyway. The driver uses car speed / direction language e.g. slowing down or steering to indicate his willingness to allow the pedestrian to cross. Or the driver could honk, scare the pedestrian by increasing the speed or coming straight at the pedestrian.
Both could bully each other - or be polite. But the unwritten cardinal rule is that cars is not supposed to hit a pedestrian. Driver could later stop and give a piece of his mind to the pedestrian, or road rage cases are not uncommon where people come to blows.
This millenia old training of humans about body language communication cannot be undone without serious efforts needing dozens of years. The humans in this scenario - even if bullies - are not worthy of capital punishment without trial.
1. You can't really draw statistical conclusions from a one off occurrence.
That is fine*. But I see people here drawing conclusions that self-driving vehicles are far safer than human driven ones, from nothing other than their own imagination, or far less data, or misleading data like yourself. And I also see you not correcting most of the ones I noticed.
Your own conclusion is highly suspect. 15 pedestrians killed per day is not comparable at all to "entire history of self-driving cars" for anyone with a clue in statistics.
2. It doesn't account for types of miles
Yup, most self-driven car miles have been overseen by humans - so if they avoided accidents it is completely unknown how much credit can be given to the humans.
3. It only looks at pedestrians and not at collisions as a whole
In many places, self-driving cars are prohibited from carrying passengers** . Why would you ask for evidence that legally and likely cannot exist in large quantities if you have a clue about statistics ?
Show me the numbers!
That is a big problem. With the available data you have made misleading statements, what would you do with more numbers ?
The raw data is "proprietary". These vehicles would drive around, potentially killing people. The data we have is for miles driven with human oversight, potentially sanitized to remove their culpability.
This is absolutely worth freaking out. The burden of proof is on these companies about to profit from firing human drivers. One important strategy for nurturing a conspiracy theory is to invert the burden of proof. You are doing that nurturing, not the critics of self-driving vehicles here, like it may seem to shallow readers.
* : I mentioned as much in one of my posts where it was more directly relevant. I don't mind mentioning it again, except to conserve a semblance of readability by not flooding a post with disclaimers.
** : Even though the "driver" or "driving assistant" in this case looked more like a passenger.
There is a car (I see something resembling headlights) far behind the woman , with roughly the same angular velocity as projected by the woman. It is possible that the machine vision is trained to not take it into account if the data (or a part of it) is coming from a distance.
1. But what if the machine "driver" kill one pedestrian every 1 million miles, but the human "driving assistant" stops them initial 9 times and lets a pedestrian be killed the 10th time?
2. If data is not enough, one can't say that "machines are better drivers" either.
And you can make this statement without reading my post ?
If you opine that data is insufficient until autonomous vehicles complete a trillion miles - I would not disagree except to say that you don't get to opine autonomous vehicles are any safer than human driven ones.
It is not only their duty to not keep secrets from their bosses, but take steps (press releases are one of the traditional forms of disclosure - which have been supplemented by newer vectors) to actively disclose them. If the disclosures fail, make fresh ones.
Really ? So why do humans manage to kill only one human every 600 million miles driven ? And the "Artificial Intelligence" unleashed upon various cities managed to kill 1 human within 10 million miles driven - many of them overseen by yet another human to override the stupid AI if necessary ?
The "rare corner cases" are not interesting to you because you don't understand them.
You are intentionally comparing uncomparable data ? Or you don't understand elementary statistics ?
In 2015, over 5,000 pedestrians were killed by collisions with cars in the U.S.
3 trillion miles driven by human drivers in the US in 2016. Suppose it is slightly lower or roughly the same for 2015 - that is one pedestrian killed every 600 million miles in 2015.
Autonomous vehicles : 1 pedestrian killed per 10 million miles driven. Autonomous vehicles are clearly 60 times worse. If you opine that data is insufficient until autonomous vehicles complete a trillion miles - I would not disagree except to say that you don't get to opine autonomous vehicles are any safer than human driven ones.
Most of those 10 million miles have been supervised by a professional human, and most of the 3 trillion miles by human drivers have been unsupervised by a(nother) human. So autonomous vehicles themselves deserve much lower credit for the safety their 60 times worse records show.
It's contemporary equivalent - social media, Youtube, fake news etc. are doing a good job of entertaining people 24 hours a day. Many millenials don't feel like sleeping at night as they have "too much to do" on these "platforms".
Slashdot Mirror
I put pretty much the entire "Delete Facebook" noise into the same mental bucket as your post. Facebook only gets what you and others give them. Don't want them to have information? Say less and click less frequently. Deleting Facebook won't keep other people from saying things about you, though it will prevent you from correcting hurtful untruths. Either way, on the whole, the only thing you can really control is what you do or say on Facebook, which means the best thing to do is to keep Facebook, but use it less.
Wouldn't "Delete Facebook" keep people who have Facebook now from divulging information about others to Facebook ? Some of the information, maybe ? Does elementary ethics have any value for you ?
It doesn't matter how "sure" you are,,, when you are that broke, you don't spend your money on stupid shit because you *will* be homeless otherwise.
Being "sure" precludes consideration of "otherwise".
It is stupid to be sure, of course, but kids are sure of far stranger things.
What if they are "sure" their investment will pay off nicely ?
Yup. Americans need to hit their children. Hard. Then youth does not engender the invincibility syndrome.
This is unrelated to other assorted stupidities of youth.
As soon as you finish creating and open-sourcing it.
Awesome! How many human beings did you kill to get this "real world" testing ?
It's not like there aren't huge testing facilities all over the place.
Name 10.
If there are such facilities, this "Uber" belonged there, not on public roads. If there aren't, Uber is all the more evil for not even testing in controlled conditions before unleashing their dangerous vehicles on public roads.
Why is Uber's ability to test "all the edge cases" worth the lives of human beings ?
So tell me, how well do humans deal with difficult edge cases? Can you quantify it?
Measure pedestrians killed by cars where a professional was not overseeing the "driver". Self-driving cars : nearly zero miles driven in this scenario (on public roads). Humans kill about one pedestrian in every 600 million miles driven.
This metric works perfectly for self-driving cars. Except that we have very little data.
Similarly you can measure for other problems - like driving off a cliff, or causing squished car pile-up on a motorways with fast driving cars etc.
Did you read my post that you are replying to ? I made 2 arguments in it , both of you which you are oblivious of and repeating your earlier points.
Before selling to Facebook, do you have evidence that Whatsapp was as much of a privacy violator as Facebook ? Or a significant fraction thereof ?
They never had advertisements, and promised they will never have. They had subscription charges - though didn't insist on the charges for some countries. I know people who refused to pay up and hence their Whatsapp account got disabled. Whatsapp is not one of the major companies, AFAIK, which gave people free stuff in exchange of raping their privacy.
In selling, Acton may not have had much of a choice. If majority shareholders decided to sell, he might as well get a good price for his share. Even if he had a choice, calling it "where that's EXACTLY what he did, to every WhatsApp user" is going too far because, say, you giving me up to terrorists for money does not make you a terrorist. Merely a greedy mercenary.
Not exactly easy to find the cutoff point. Just FEWER doesn't tell the whole story. What if humans worsen as drivers due to lack of practice as a lot of driving is done by machines ? Also, when in urban settings pedestrians cross roads - there is a lot of "communication" between the driver and pedestrian. We don't want to kill innocents even if they are FEWER.
The pedestrian uses body language - they could also shout in slow speed scenarios though complicated sentences are ruled out for any speeds that can kill or maim. Pedestrians can indicate with their body language that they have perceived the car but they intend to assert their "right" to cross the road anyway. The driver uses car speed / direction language e.g. slowing down or steering to indicate his willingness to allow the pedestrian to cross. Or the driver could honk, scare the pedestrian by increasing the speed or coming straight at the pedestrian.
Both could bully each other - or be polite. But the unwritten cardinal rule is that cars is not supposed to hit a pedestrian. Driver could later stop and give a piece of his mind to the pedestrian, or road rage cases are not uncommon where people come to blows.
This millenia old training of humans about body language communication cannot be undone without serious efforts needing dozens of years. The humans in this scenario - even if bullies - are not worthy of capital punishment without trial.
Yeah right, this published video was from a "night vision device".
1. You can't really draw statistical conclusions from a one off occurrence.
That is fine*. But I see people here drawing conclusions that self-driving vehicles are far safer than human driven ones, from nothing other than their own imagination, or far less data, or misleading data like yourself. And I also see you not correcting most of the ones I noticed.
Your own conclusion is highly suspect. 15 pedestrians killed per day is not comparable at all to "entire history of self-driving cars" for anyone with a clue in statistics.
2. It doesn't account for types of miles
Yup, most self-driven car miles have been overseen by humans - so if they avoided accidents it is completely unknown how much credit can be given to the humans.
3. It only looks at pedestrians and not at collisions as a whole
In many places, self-driving cars are prohibited from carrying passengers** . Why would you ask for evidence that legally and likely cannot exist in large quantities if you have a clue about statistics ?
Show me the numbers!
That is a big problem. With the available data you have made misleading statements, what would you do with more numbers ?
The raw data is "proprietary". These vehicles would drive around, potentially killing people. The data we have is for miles driven with human oversight, potentially sanitized to remove their culpability.
This is absolutely worth freaking out. The burden of proof is on these companies about to profit from firing human drivers. One important strategy for nurturing a conspiracy theory is to invert the burden of proof. You are doing that nurturing, not the critics of self-driving vehicles here, like it may seem to shallow readers.
* : I mentioned as much in one of my posts where it was more directly relevant. I don't mind mentioning it again, except to conserve a semblance of readability by not flooding a post with disclaimers.
** : Even though the "driver" or "driving assistant" in this case looked more like a passenger.
There is a car (I see something resembling headlights) far behind the woman , with roughly the same angular velocity as projected by the woman. It is possible that the machine vision is trained to not take it into account if the data (or a part of it) is coming from a distance.
1. But what if the machine "driver" kill one pedestrian every 1 million miles, but the human "driving assistant" stops them initial 9 times and lets a pedestrian be killed the 10th time?
2. If data is not enough, one can't say that "machines are better drivers" either.
3. Nobody is "killing" all machines.
The woman was in a situation where a human driver would have also hit her.
Ok, run your time machine, replace the car with a human driver at the same place and same time. Let us see.
If your time machine is broken, shut up about what would have happened and concentrate on what happened. And learn some math.
You agree that you have no clue what is being discussed ?
With your limited brain capacity, try to get simpler data .
Pedestrians killed (remember the topic being discussed) : over 5000 per year. https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehic...
Miles driven : over 3 trillion per year. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...
Demand back your money from your "algebra" classes. Because they admitted ineligible students like you who failed arithmetic.
Why don't you try to understand the topic that is being discussed ?
And you can make this statement without reading my post ?
If you opine that data is insufficient until autonomous vehicles complete a trillion miles - I would not disagree except to say that you don't get to opine autonomous vehicles are any safer than human driven ones.
What kind of simpleton freaks out about one pedestrian killed in the entire history of self-driving cars?
Human drivers : 30 trillion miles driven in last decade, 50,000 pedestrians killed.
Self-driving cars : 10 million miles driven in last decade, 1 pedestrian killed.
Humans 60 times better than machines restrained by humans from killing pedestrians.
Applications don't matter. Read.
It is not only their duty to not keep secrets from their bosses, but take steps (press releases are one of the traditional forms of disclosure - which have been supplemented by newer vectors) to actively disclose them. If the disclosures fail, make fresh ones.
hit the brakes. And SDCs are FAR better at that
Really ? So why do humans manage to kill only one human every 600 million miles driven ? And the "Artificial Intelligence" unleashed upon various cities managed to kill 1 human within 10 million miles driven - many of them overseen by yet another human to override the stupid AI if necessary ?
The "rare corner cases" are not interesting to you because you don't understand them.
You are intentionally comparing uncomparable data ? Or you don't understand elementary statistics ?
In 2015, over 5,000 pedestrians were killed by collisions with cars in the U.S.
3 trillion miles driven by human drivers in the US in 2016. Suppose it is slightly lower or roughly the same for 2015 - that is one pedestrian killed every 600 million miles in 2015.
Autonomous vehicles : 1 pedestrian killed per 10 million miles driven. Autonomous vehicles are clearly 60 times worse. If you opine that data is insufficient until autonomous vehicles complete a trillion miles - I would not disagree except to say that you don't get to opine autonomous vehicles are any safer than human driven ones.
Most of those 10 million miles have been supervised by a professional human, and most of the 3 trillion miles by human drivers have been unsupervised by a(nother) human. So autonomous vehicles themselves deserve much lower credit for the safety their 60 times worse records show.
It's contemporary equivalent - social media, Youtube, fake news etc. are doing a good job of entertaining people 24 hours a day. Many millenials don't feel like sleeping at night as they have "too much to do" on these "platforms".