Now that I have read the article again, this study doesn't do what I said at all.. All they did was add a certain amount of accidents that would be under-reported by people. There was no omission of the types of human accidents that wouldn't apply to autonomy. They are comparing apples to oranges and they know it, which is why they included the line about there not being enough real-world statistics.
Ah yes I'm sure a study backed by Google would be accurate. The fact is that there are still humans in the Google cars so of course they are prevented from getting into serious accidents. That is happening from the human taking over, not from ai. All that aside, the article backs up my point a few sentences later: "self-driving cars are still not widespread enough to check if the safety technologies included in these vehicles actually hold up against the myriad of real-life situations that can be experienced."
Cite your source.. I don't even know of any automated car that works in all situations that a human works in, so there is no way to compare. At the very least, you would have to omit human accidents that happened in tricky situations that autonomy wouldn't attempt. For example, if autonomy will not pass other vehicles in the oncoming traffic lane, then omit any human accident that happened while passing in the human traffic lane.
I'm saying the chance is far less likely.. It is far less surprising that one out of a million humans would make this mistake because of the sheer number of drivers. On the other hand there are only 20? 30? Automated Uber cars on the road, if they are as safe then accidents for them should be statistically negligible if not impossible. This is not even taking into account all the extra limitations that have been placed on Uber cars that are not on human drivers. Not sure how you could say automation is anywhere near as safe.
Really.. So the Uber car was able to figure out on its own that it was going the wrong way and get out of the situation like a human would? Or was it totally oblivious to its own mistake. The reaction to the mistake is more important to the fact that the mistake was made.
Sure out of 1,000,000 human drivers on the road maybe it happens 10 times a day in any given city. How many self driving cars in Uber's fleet? I'm guessing less than 100,000. And it has happened already.
Pretend that there weren't human drivers in the Uber car. Do you think the autonomy would have been able to deal with the situation safely once realizing the mistake, as your friend apparently did?
It kind of seems like the Tesla car that ran into a trailer should have 'deep learned' that it was the wrong thing to do, rather than have Tesla manually change the code to focus more on radar. Fact of the matter is, it doesn't seem like these cars 'learn' anything at all without a human entering it.
They also have to survive the onslaught of litigation that will occur when they aren't perfect. Self driving won't be very practical if they cause millions of dollars worth of accidental damage and deaths every day. They can easily do that while being "better than a human".
Face it, companies with lots of money are growing very comfortable that they aren't held to the same laws as everyone else. Companies such as Uber aren't started by being innovative, they're started because they are the least afraid to go with a different reading of laws.
But they also have to be as good at getting out of the situation on their own. I think this is the biggest concern, that the car will just stay confused and not auto correct itself by turning around without hitting anything and recalculating the route.
True, humans make the same mistake... but then they realize their mistake and turn around without getting into an accident and carry on their way. Was the autonomous car able to do the same?
Last time I was on a plane, anything that broadcast a signal had to be off for the whole flight. The kids had cases for their tablets with Bluetooth keyboards.. couldn't use them for the whole flight.
So you're saying it's all just a huge coincidence that these moves they make to please the customer just require us to buy more stuff that is more expensive and only lasts a few years?
I can say personally I would never buy USB or lightning headphones. Why? Because I have 20 devices around my house that work with 3.5mm jacks. So until I can find a USB headphone that comes with 20 USB to 3.5mm converters, plus some extra for me to lose, they'll need to wait 15 years or more for me to replace all the devices I have already.
The funny thing is, I hear over and over again that capitalism is supposed to give the consumer what they want because the consumer is king. It seems to me the consumer gets treated more like livestock than royalty.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the people who DO die should not be doing so because a machine fucked up.
Now that I have read the article again, this study doesn't do what I said at all.. All they did was add a certain amount of accidents that would be under-reported by people. There was no omission of the types of human accidents that wouldn't apply to autonomy. They are comparing apples to oranges and they know it, which is why they included the line about there not being enough real-world statistics.
Ah yes I'm sure a study backed by Google would be accurate. The fact is that there are still humans in the Google cars so of course they are prevented from getting into serious accidents. That is happening from the human taking over, not from ai. All that aside, the article backs up my point a few sentences later: "self-driving cars are still not widespread enough to check if the safety technologies included in these vehicles actually hold up against the myriad of real-life situations that can be experienced."
Cite your source.. I don't even know of any automated car that works in all situations that a human works in, so there is no way to compare. At the very least, you would have to omit human accidents that happened in tricky situations that autonomy wouldn't attempt. For example, if autonomy will not pass other vehicles in the oncoming traffic lane, then omit any human accident that happened while passing in the human traffic lane.
I'm saying the chance is far less likely.. It is far less surprising that one out of a million humans would make this mistake because of the sheer number of drivers. On the other hand there are only 20? 30? Automated Uber cars on the road, if they are as safe then accidents for them should be statistically negligible if not impossible. This is not even taking into account all the extra limitations that have been placed on Uber cars that are not on human drivers. Not sure how you could say automation is anywhere near as safe.
Really.. So the Uber car was able to figure out on its own that it was going the wrong way and get out of the situation like a human would? Or was it totally oblivious to its own mistake. The reaction to the mistake is more important to the fact that the mistake was made.
Sure out of 1,000,000 human drivers on the road maybe it happens 10 times a day in any given city. How many self driving cars in Uber's fleet? I'm guessing less than 100,000. And it has happened already.
Pretend that there weren't human drivers in the Uber car. Do you think the autonomy would have been able to deal with the situation safely once realizing the mistake, as your friend apparently did?
It kind of seems like the Tesla car that ran into a trailer should have 'deep learned' that it was the wrong thing to do, rather than have Tesla manually change the code to focus more on radar. Fact of the matter is, it doesn't seem like these cars 'learn' anything at all without a human entering it.
They also have to survive the onslaught of litigation that will occur when they aren't perfect. Self driving won't be very practical if they cause millions of dollars worth of accidental damage and deaths every day. They can easily do that while being "better than a human".
There are towns that are replicated for this purpose, so yes.
Face it, companies with lots of money are growing very comfortable that they aren't held to the same laws as everyone else. Companies such as Uber aren't started by being innovative, they're started because they are the least afraid to go with a different reading of laws.
But they also have to be as good at getting out of the situation on their own. I think this is the biggest concern, that the car will just stay confused and not auto correct itself by turning around without hitting anything and recalculating the route.
I always check the directions of street signs.
Yeah because breaking the LAW doesn't make it wrong or anything. Let's blame the people following the law.
True, humans make the same mistake... but then they realize their mistake and turn around without getting into an accident and carry on their way. Was the autonomous car able to do the same?
What they are claiming is that they are ready to be on public roadways, which they aren't if they are still doing things like this.
One important aspect of being a parent is teaching them to respect rules, so yes we followed the rules.
Yes and if I glue a 3.5mm adapter to the end of them they'll work with all the audio devices I have!
Last time I was on a plane, anything that broadcast a signal had to be off for the whole flight. The kids had cases for their tablets with Bluetooth keyboards.. couldn't use them for the whole flight.
I'd rather glue a USB to 3.5mm dongle to the end of usb headphones. Wow, now my headphones are compatible with 99% of all devices!
So you're saying it's all just a huge coincidence that these moves they make to please the customer just require us to buy more stuff that is more expensive and only lasts a few years?
I can say personally I would never buy USB or lightning headphones. Why? Because I have 20 devices around my house that work with 3.5mm jacks. So until I can find a USB headphone that comes with 20 USB to 3.5mm converters, plus some extra for me to lose, they'll need to wait 15 years or more for me to replace all the devices I have already.
The funny thing is, I hear over and over again that capitalism is supposed to give the consumer what they want because the consumer is king. It seems to me the consumer gets treated more like livestock than royalty.
..without having a stupid extra dongle to buy and lose.