[HN Gopher] For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI's Flaws Are Getti...
___________________________________________________________________
For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI's Flaws Are Getting Harder to
Ignore
Author : mjohn
Score : 111 points
Date : 2021-10-04 10:49 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| nikkinana wrote:
| It's pretty easy to ignore Bloomberg, they're a bunch of dopes.
| machinelearning wrote:
| 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?
| gameswithgo wrote:
| 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.
| machinelearning wrote:
| 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?
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| > 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 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.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > 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?
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| 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.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| If there is clear evidence that these cars would have
| lower fatality rates than human drivers (I don't think
| this evidence currently exists), then holding off release
| to continue development is potentially a moral bad, for
| the same reason that we end clinical trials early when
| they demonstrate clear life-saving potential that would
| save lives in the control group.
|
| I don't think it is morally reprehensible to ask what
| other people's intuition around this problem is.
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| > Is it worth killing n random people, for a uncalculated
| and unknowable chance of saving n+m lives in the future.
| The pool of people randomly selected to die have not
| volunteered or consented to be part of this project.
| There are ways to achieve the same lifesaving endgoal
| without the upfront sacrifice of lives.
|
| The part which really strikes me as morally reprehensible
| is where the companies are saving money on test drivers
| and controlled test environments and externalizing those
| costs onto every other driver sharing the road with their
| training data collectors
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Is it worth killing n random people, for a uncalculated
| and unknowable chance of saving n+m lives in the future.
| The pool of people randomly selected to die have not
| volunteered or consented to be part of this project.
|
| This reasoning renders any governmental policy change of
| any sort impermissible.
|
| It isn't coherent to apply these forms of deontological
| ethics to state action - a random set of people will die
| with both state action and omission of action, I see no
| reason why not to pick the option with the smaller
| expected number of deaths.
|
| But this is all besides my original point: this is a
| legitimate moral debate to have and the rhetoric used by
| the above commentator was entirely uncalled for.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Waymo appears to disagree with you, they ran tests with
| safety drivers and in controlled conditions for a very long
| time, and they eventually got to the point where there are
| customers riding in unmanned taxis. Tesla is just applying
| a "move fast and break things" approach to pedestrians'
| lives in order to satisfy shareholder interests and
| executive egos. They're not the only ones, as we saw from
| Uber's absolutely shameful performance that eventually lead
| to a death (safety driver involved but not solely
| responsible, of course)
| KallDrexx wrote:
| I was under the impression that while Waymo did some
| tests unsupervised, most of the rides that non-employees
| can hail still have a supervisor. Is that not true?
| lvl100 wrote:
| 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.
| grlass wrote:
| 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.
| machinelearning wrote:
| The severity of the accident is an interesting point.
| Though it intuitively feels like there are ways for
| software to mitigate the severity of an accident when it
| realizes it is about to crash than a human who might be
| asleep, intoxicated or otherwise have a slower reaction
| time.
| kevingadd wrote:
| The machine's ability to recognize that it's about to
| crash may actually be one of the issues here, since often
| the self-driving/driving-assist car crashes are cases
| where the AI just completely misinterpreted the
| environment and made bad choices.
|
| A human driver is somewhat likely to eventually realize
| what situation they've gotten themselves into (oh no, i
| can't stop in time) because of the multiple different
| feedback loops and information sources they're working
| with combined with their experience as a driver. For
| example, a drunk or very tired driver is operating with
| impaired decision making and response time, but they may
| eventually notice and respond - while an AI
| misclassifying a fire truck as a stop sign may very well
| continue misclassifying it until impact.
|
| One way to mitigate this would be via sensor fusion -
| even if your vision or radar sensing fail, you can rely
| on data from other sensors to do things like apply
| emergency braking.
|
| Unfortunately at least one vendor has decided to ditch
| radar, lidar, etc and just go with vision!
| machinelearning wrote:
| 1. I'd challenge the premise that human errors are random.
| There are a ton of patterns that cause accidents including
| intoxication, low visibility conditions and tiredness. I
| haven't done a statistical analysis but I'd hazard a guess
| that only a minority of human accidents are truly random. 2.
| Why does the randomness matter if the error rate is lower?
| Certainly if the errors are predictable, they can be
| discovered and fixed or avoided?
| mainframed wrote:
| What do you mean with that, and why does the error
| type/"randomness" matter?
|
| 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?
| bluGill wrote:
| The only part that is random is if it gets you this time.
| People follow too close almost constantly, if that would
| cause an crash every time only in the most rural areas would
| people be able to drive even one mile without a crash. Note
| that the cause is pervasive: following too close.
|
| Others are bring up tired, drunk, texting... All real
| problems, but following too close is universal to nearly all
| drivers.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| Hm. I find this very analogous to the MRNA vaccine debate: how
| high an error rate of a new technology do we accept, and to
| what degree does that choice have to be made at a community
| rather than an individual level?
|
| I'd feel best if that decision was made at the smallest
| community level possible, so ideally county by county rather
| than federally. That lightens the burden of politicians making
| the wrong choice or being a citizen who disagrees with the
| right choice.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| You get far more localized really shitty situations if you
| devolve to that level. Sometimes central decision making is
| good.
|
| Having to switch the mode of operation of your car depending
| on what side of various county lines you are on seems like an
| obvious regulatory failure.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| The error rate would certainly go up at first due to the
| additional complexity, but the cost of each error goes
| down. Besides, I have to switch the speed at which I'm
| driving far more granularly than at county lines, and no
| one's worried about a car's ability to handle that.
|
| I don't disagree that sometimes central decision making is
| good, but in a complicated situation where any decision
| will have some negative consequences depending on the
| specific context seems like a textbook case of not being
| one of them.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The same argument would justifies human medical experiments,
| and we know they actually work, and result in faster access to
| improved drugs and vaccines.
|
| 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
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I think the difference is that human medical experiments
| immediately cause suffering at a higher rate than whatever
| disease they're trying to fix.
|
| I believe that there have been studies showing that today's
| "self driving" cars are already statistically safer than
| regular cars.
| Forge36 wrote:
| It's about risk trade off. If it's 2x better than humans is it
| worth it? 10x? 100x?
|
| 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)
| mplewis wrote:
| We can't ignore core usability and basic safety issues by
| saying "on average, this is better." End users can't be
| expected to know that they'll probably be fine, but an edge
| case they don't understand will kill them one evening when
| they drive past a stopped ambulance.
| Forge36 wrote:
| Why not? If it saves 30,000 lives per year is that not a
| meaningful improvement? I suspect my
| understanding/acceptance of "unknown risk while driving" is
| flawed in some way, or at least very different from the
| general populace.
| tragomaskhalos wrote:
| The problem is, it's not a level playing field. 100 incidents
| of a person ploughing into a bus queue and killing a child,
| each is news for a day, everyone accepts the tragedy and
| moves on. A self-driving car does it once though, and the mob
| will be at the factory gates with torches and pitchforks.
| Forge36 wrote:
| That's an interesting problem. I wonder what social
| discussions need to take to reach acceptance for "AI
| assisted driving". Mandatory AI breaking to prevent driving
| into a bus queue?
|
| I'm also curious how to find the people who do object vs
| theory-crafting all possible concerns people could have.
| tdrdt wrote:
| It depends on what kind of error it produces.
|
| If the error rate is only 0.5% but the death rate of those
| errors is 100% I am not sure it will be justifiable.
| aspaceman wrote:
| Even if the death rate is low but the _perceived_ impact is
| high.
|
| Ex: Imagine a week where self-driving cars have a bug that
| only mis-identifies grandmas. Only a few grandmas die but the
| perceptual impact is massive.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I am starting to wonder if we're pretending to live a little
| further into the future than we realistically can right now.
| Modern Silicon Valley is built around businesses with software
| margins. If you can scale via software, it's huge. If we actually
| saddled these companies with their externalities or with doing
| what they say they do, would they still have been able to have
| software margins, or would they have had to wait until the
| tech/science was better?
|
| It gives me a wary feeling when people talk about tech regulation
| and warn that it would change the internet as we know it. Like,
| if putting the externalities on the company means the company
| can't exist as it does today, is that really so bad?
| amelius wrote:
| 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?
| leesec wrote:
| Misclassification issues don't really matter in driving.
| Sometimes I mis-classify the things I see, all that matters is
| if I keep driving safely.
| fksadfji12 wrote:
| They have the ability to do so, if they want.
|
| I don't think they will need to as those types of bugs are
| exceedingly rare.
| play2computers wrote:
| I think that should very much depend on the severity and the
| statistical impact of the bug. As long as the long doesn't
| raise the deaths-per-mile-driven number above what humans would
| be doing, I would say it would be ok to just leave it running
| and just update once it is fixed. The goal is to get cars
| driving better than humans (which btw they already do by a huge
| margin, even with the fsd beta). so disabling the autopilot
| because of a potential bug would be condemning a lot more
| people to death than leaving it in. Interesting variation of
| the trolley problem i guess
| Iolaum wrote:
| To add context. In Aviation, if they do find a bug in the
| software running an airplane's engine they do ground planes
| until they know more about impact and mitigation.
|
| Not saying cars should do the same, just that it's not absurd
| to consider it.
| hef19898 wrote:
| 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.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| " 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
| leesec wrote:
| 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.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > If Tesla solves driving it will lead to tens of
| thousands of lives saved a year.
|
| That's a big if. If we solved aging, we'd save nearly all
| lives, so please don't regulate my medical practice. I
| expect to have aging solved and millions of treatments
| rolled out by 2020.
| jcranmer wrote:
| On a per-mile-driven basis, Tesla's self-driving accident
| rate is somewhere in the region of 5-10x that of human
| drivers, IIRC. And keep in mind that the self-driving
| here is already in a state of selection bias where it's
| more likely to be used in safer conditions (i.e., fully-
| grade-separated highway driving in clear conditions,
| rather than dense urban environments in inclement
| weather).
| Domenic_S wrote:
| Maybe you were thinking the autopilot accident rate being
| 5-10x _less_ than human drivers?
|
| > _In the 2nd quarter, we recorded one crash for every
| 4.41 million miles driven in which drivers were using
| Autopilot technology (Autosteer and active safety
| features). For drivers who were not using Autopilot
| technology (no Autosteer and active safety features), we
| recorded one crash for every 1.2 million miles driven. By
| comparison, NHTSA's most recent data shows that in the
| United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000
| miles._
|
| Tesla publishes these safety reports; the accident rate
| has held fairly steady quarter over quarter:
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| You really can't compare the average mile with the
| average autopilot mile. The best analogy I've heard is
| comparing human aircraft pilots (takeoffs, landings,
| weird old planes, all kinds of pilots) against aircraft
| autopilots only cruising at 30,000ft.
| jcranmer wrote:
| I know there are several wildly different statistics for
| Tesla's crash rate. Some of these statistics suffer from
| poor data quality, and the first big study saying "Tesla
| is safer than average drivers!" was _really_ affected by
| this (I don 't recall the exact details, but the
| consensus of pretty much everyone not Tesla was the
| statistics were complete garbage).
| Domenic_S wrote:
| I mean if you have data feel free to present it like I
| did.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| One immediately obvious issue is comparing _Tesla_
| vehicles, which are all relatively new vehicles typically
| owned by relatively older drivers to _all other passenger
| vehicle_.
|
| The other immediately obvious issue is that the self
| driving features of a Tesla probably work best in ideal
| conditions, where human drivers also do.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| If new technology X saves 100 lives for each person it
| kills, it _will_ be banned.
|
| Because the dead person has a name, a tragic story, and
| grieving relatives, which will make the news.
|
| The 100 saved people are anonymous, don't know they were
| saved by X, and this will be unreported outside of
| obscure research journals.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| If you save a child from drowning you don't get a 'a kill
| coupon' you can retrieve next time you are accused of
| murder.
| Sodman wrote:
| Certainly not, but if we invent a life-saving medicine
| that 1 in 1 million people have a fatal reaction to,
| we'll still consider it enough of an overall positive for
| humanity to celebrate it as a technological win for
| society.
|
| The ratio isn't 1:1 or even 1:10, but there is a line
| somewhere where X deaths <caused by new tech> is
| acceptable because of the X^Y lives saved <by new tech>.
|
| See also: Most modes of transport, most medicines and
| surgical procedures.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Are in favour of medical experiments on random strangers?
|
| The same argument applies - sorry you died, but the data
| might save someone else's life down the line.
|
| A lot of unique medical data was produced by Nazis doing
| cruel experiments on people.
|
| https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/learn-from-nazi-medical-
| res...
| hef19898 wrote:
| 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.
| leesec wrote:
| You think Uber doesn't provide a good service to the
| world? You are in favor of Taxi/Medallion monopolies?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "You don't like you country being occupied by Soviet
| Union? Would you prefer Nazi Germany instead?"
| hef19898 wrote:
| Not necessarily, just the a huge portion of Ubers
| competitive advantage comes from ignoring existing rules.
| Rules incumbents do follow.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Perhaps it can be simultaneously true that Uber is
| providing a good service to customers against an outdated
| and badly-run industry, while they are doing many bad
| things.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Funny how someone on the internet can translate my
| understanding of "struggling" into plain English!
| Appreciate it!
|
| Disclaimer: I _really_ try to work on my ability to word
| stuff more diplomatically. HN is a good training ground
| for that!
| taneq wrote:
| That's the theory but the recent issues with Boeing show that
| practice doesn't always follow.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Boeing lobbied the FAA for way too long to avoid grounding
| of the fleet. It did happen so, after it turned out
| Boeing's SW fixes didn't work.
|
| Also, just how that part of the 737MAX was certified is the
| real scandal, if you ask me. This is the literal example
| proofing the rule, so.
| zibzab wrote:
| I can already see Elons angry tweets if MVA ever even thinks
| about that. Remember the Corona tweets?
|
| What we need is a big fat lawsuit, since the government will
| not do anything to anger the only profitable US automaker.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I'll be happy if "AI" cars are safer than human drivers on
| average. Zero accidents/deaths can come later.
|
| If everyone was flying their personal planes around and
| constantly banging into each other a minor software bug would
| not ground any planes. It would be more like a malfunctioning
| airbag recall.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| 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.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Munro sat down with Musk and enthusiastically praised FSD but
| complained about how roads were often improperly painted.
| Musk--to his credit--said the car needed to work safely even
| in the presence of paint errors. (Video is on Munro's YT
| channel.) Munro is very critical of many aspects of car
| design; I cannot understand why he's such a fan of FSD.
|
| I tried FSD on the $200/month plan and dropped it: It makes
| the car unsafe. To command a lane change you hold down the
| turn signal stalk. If you fail to hold it down long enough
| the car suddenly swerves back to the lane it was in. This is
| (to say the least) disconcerting at 80 mph.
|
| FSD can also suddenly decide to do weird things that are
| difficult to correct even when you're paying close attention.
| It's unnerving. Ordinary autosteer (which is included with
| every Tesla at no extra charge) works well enough for me and
| it fails in more predictable ways; it's easy for me to build
| a mental model of its limitations. I'll stick with that.
| moduspol wrote:
| > I tried FSD on the $200/month plan and dropped it: It
| makes the car unsafe. To command a lane change you hold
| down the turn signal stalk. If you fail to hold it down
| long enough the car suddenly swerves back to the lane it
| was in. This is (to say the least) disconcerting at 80 mph.
|
| That's not quite accurate. Unrelated to autopilot / FSD,
| you can do a small press on the turn signal and it will
| signal three times and then stop signaling. You can also
| push all the way down and it will signal until you turn it
| off. You don't have to hold it down.
|
| FSD will only continue switching lanes while the turn
| signal is on, so if you do a small press down, you may see
| the behavior you described.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| To clarify I'm talking about a lane change initiated by
| me rather than merely allowing one recommended by the
| car. The latter only requires a brief flick of the turn
| signal stalk.
|
| But the former required me to actively hold it down for
| several seconds--much longer than a full turn signal
| would require. I had to hold it down until the car was
| completely within the stripes of the adjacent lane or the
| car would immediately swerve back into the original lane.
| I tested it many times on a traffic-free road. Might have
| been a setting; I don't know.
| johnsimer wrote:
| Interesting. Either way I only have to tap the stalk
| down.
| texasbigdata wrote:
| Had the opposite experience on a testdrive purposely
| (within reason) trying to see if it would merge into a lane
| that subsequently had a merging onramp with a car resulting
| in the blindspot likely needing to move in.
|
| Was super impressed it seemed to over correct and be
| thoughtful about consequences a few seconds down the road.
|
| Anecdote though.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| > Munro is very critical of many aspects of car design; I
| cannot understand why he's such a fan of FSD.
|
| Maybe due to personal profit?
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/kxj0or/twitter_
| s...
| gamblor956 wrote:
| TLDR: Munro admits to owning a bunch of Tesla stock, and
| there is a drastic change in his opinions of Tesla before
| he owned Tesla stock vs after.
| nomel wrote:
| Or, perhaps there is a drastic change in his stock
| ownership after his opinions changed.
| mikestew wrote:
| _there is a drastic change in his opinions of Tesla
| before he owned Tesla stock vs after._
|
| I'm confident that this would apply to just about anyone
| that has ever bought, and then sold, Tesla stock.
| Because, and I don't mean to overstate the obvious, if
| one's opinion didn't change then why sell the stock?
| leesec wrote:
| >I tried FSD on the $200/month plan and dropped it: It
| makes the car unsafe. To command a lane change you hold
| down the turn signal stalk. If you fail to hold it down
| long enough the car suddenly swerves back to the lane it
| was in. This is (to say the least) disconcerting at 80 mph.
|
| This isn't true. You just tap the stalk down until it
| clicks. Sometimes if it detects issues in the other lane it
| will not complete the lane change and go back into your
| existing lane. But you do not have to hold it down the
| whole time.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > Munro is very critical of many aspects of car design; I
| cannot understand why he's such a fan of FSD.
|
| Because he doesn't understand it and thinks it's magic. He
| has not much clue about modern tech and is just buying into
| the hype.
| virtue3 wrote:
| We didn't get the FAA regulations we have now until after a
| ton of people died in aviation accidents and the aviation
| industry figured they need to get their image together.
|
| So... yeah it's gonna take a lot of deaths for this to get
| regulated. It's a shame cuz we already basically know how to
| regulate this.
| revscat wrote:
| 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.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Even when a critical problem is found, I can't think of any
| example of cars being disabled remotely - either through
| technical means or laws saying 'you may not drive this car'.
| amelius wrote:
| Another option is that they recall the cars.
|
| It's not uncommon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9
| 32011_Toyota_vehic...
| drcode wrote:
| The same thing that happens to a human that is at risk of
| misclassifying a fire truck for a bridge: Once the odds of this
| happening are low enough (say 0.00001%) they can pass a
| driver's test and we give them a drivers license.
| tguedes wrote:
| The problem is that's 1 person. For Tesla's autopilot, that's
| the hundreds of thousands of cars running that broken model.
| The scale of the problem is much larger.
| 3dfan wrote:
| By the time people are allowed to let their cars drive
| unsupervised, the crash rate of AI versus human will probably
| be 1:10 or so.
|
| So even when those cars ram into fire trucks from time to time,
| it would be better to let them do their thing. Otherwise people
| will grab the steering wheel, drive drunk, sleepy, angry etc
| and ram into all kinds of things again.
|
| Currently, there are 6 million car accidents per year in the
| USA. Almost 100 people die in car accidents every day. So there
| is a ton of data to make the decision.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >By the time people are allowed to let their cars drive
| unsupervised, the crash rate of AI versus human will probably
| be 1:10 or so.
|
| This sort of statement keeps being parroted over and over
| again. As Linus would say, _talk is cheap, show me the code_
| ; then we can speak.
|
| >So even when those cars ram into fire trucks from time to
| time [...]
|
| This is just insane, honestly, and if this is the premise
| that guides the development of these sort of systems I'll be
| glad to never set foot on one.
| shkkmo wrote:
| The entire way we approach driver liability in general is
| insane.
|
| The Attorney General of South Dakota was looking at his
| phone, swerved into the shoulder, killed man and then left
| the scene. He claimed he thought he hit a deer, even though
| the victim's head went through the windshield and the
| victims glasses were later found inside the car.
|
| What consequences did the Attorney General face? Was his
| licence revoked or suspended? Did he serve any jail time?
| Did he resign? The answer to all of these is "No." The only
| result was two misdemeanors and a 500 dollar fine.
|
| So yes, accepting occaisonal inhuman errors from a system
| that is 10x safer (hypothetical, no current systems have
| this record) than human drivers may also be insane but it
| would still be far more sane than the current approach to
| human drivers.
| [deleted]
| kevinventullo wrote:
| That seems more like plain old political corruption than
| a problem with the way driver liability is handled. If
| you or I did that we'd almost certainly be facing prison
| time.
| moralestapia wrote:
| The problem with this is you're using the worst possible
| examples of driving as a benchmark, and that is quite a
| low standard to have.
|
| Take a look at the best possible examples, instead, and
| try to improve over that, then we're talking.
|
| You cannot be a shitty doctor and bring out an excuse
| like "Oh, but wait, this guy has lost more patients than
| me, so I'm fine".
|
| You really don't want to have a race to the bottom where
| human lives are at stake.
| shkkmo wrote:
| I'm not using it as a benchmark at all.
|
| I'm using a high profile example to point out clear
| issues with how we handle human driver responsibility. If
| your negligence directly results in you killing someone,
| you should lose your license to drive.
|
| If we someday reach the point where autonomous driving
| systems are actually 10x safer than human drivers and
| those systems still have issues with hitting emergency
| vehicles, we should absolutely hold those companies
| responsible for those accidents.
|
| My point is that not holding those companies responsible
| would be less insane than our current practice of letting
| clearly negligent drivers continue to drive with minimal
| consequences after they kill someone.
|
| So instead of being outraged about this hypothetical
| future, why not be outraged about the insane lack of
| consequences that drivers face currently?
| pfortuny wrote:
| There is no code, that is the problem.
|
| You (or the Transport Administration) do not have access to
| the training data, the training parameters or anything at
| all.
|
| It is just a black-box which we are all to trust because
| "it works, mostly".
|
| In my book, that goes against any notion of admissibility
| by a government agency.
| amelius wrote:
| Yes anything or anyone outside of the norm becomes a
| target.
|
| E.g. wear your hair in a funny way that's never been
| trained on? You're a target!
| kevingadd wrote:
| People already let their Teslas drive unsupervised, they're
| just "not supposed to". That will be increasingly permitted
| over time, either implicitly or explicitly. It's not a switch
| that will be flipped nationwide once the data hits a
| threshold.
| croon wrote:
| In aggregate, humans have a lot of failure modes when
| driving, but it's also difficult to compare aggregate data
| with specific AI failure modes.
|
| I have been driving for almost two decades with 0 accidents.
| I'm not saying I can't have a lapse of judgement or do
| something stupid going forward, but I certainly won't mis-
| class an object, nor kill myself over it.
|
| I hypothetically want bad drivers to be replaced by AI
| because it's likely already better. But replacing everyone
| with AI (at the current generation of AI, which isn't the
| first, nor the last) will undoubtedly lead to tons of
| avoidable deaths, and I'm not keen on drawing a lottery
| ticket for it.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| I'm more interested in replacing _other_ drivers, more than
| myself. Really if we could replace the bottom 10% of
| drivers with AI, even at the level we have today, I imagine
| that would be a net improvement. But that isn't really a
| feasible program. As for future, improved AI, I would trade
| my own driving for the more efficient and safer system.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| That's really the move, having another class of driver
| license that lets you manually drive. Anyone can get an
| in ai self-driving car, but if you want to manually drive
| you have to pass a difficult skills test to prove you
| could outperform the ai.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| Everyone on this site posts this comment, and they all ignore
| the fact that human beings crash because of their own issues
| (e.g. driving drunk) but Autopiloting cars that crash because
| of some engineering issue are a whole different can of worms.
|
| Who is liable from an insurance perspective in that case? How
| can the issue be rectified (what the initial comment asked,
| we can't seriously just let people randomly die while the bug
| is fixed)? Will wrongful death suits crush Tesla (as they'll
| be trivial to win if such a bug does exist)?
|
| Grapple with the actual questions, stop deflecting by saying
| "it's better than human driving". Sure it is. But what do we
| do moving forward? Modern medicine is better than leech
| therapy too but that doesn't answer how we deal with poorly
| developed medicines with harmful side effects.
| username_my1 wrote:
| 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 traffic accidents are the leading cause of
| death for 30yo so we aren't exactly replacing a perfect system
| revscat wrote:
| 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.
| mplewis wrote:
| Ok. But this idealism doesn't work when Tesla has clear
| failure modes that simply shouldn't happen during normal
| driving.
|
| Humans generally do not give their cars haircuts by slamming
| them under a stopped cargo truck. They do not generally smash
| straight into stationary emergency vehicles.
|
| We can't handwave basic safety issues away by saying "in
| aggregate, they perform better than humans in most
| conditions." The basic safety issues get people killed.
| Leaning on some "average driver" fallacy is a way to ignore
| issues core to the tech stack.
| username_my1 wrote:
| why doesn't it work? isn't all our society always
| abstracting away the individual stories behind statistics?
| (crime is down by 10% ! GDP is up by 0.2%, birthrate is
| down by xx).
|
| we're used to it and we're happy about it and we use it to
| make decisions (buy house now, move to a new city ...).
|
| Plus in those rare cases that you mentioned at least the
| same system will be feedback the incident to make sure that
| this won't happen again in the future... so in a morbid way
| there is a way to learn from such fatal incidents ... you
| can't really say that about such incident if the driver was
| a human.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Slight quibble: I very much agree with your overall point
| but human-driven cars slam straight into rescue vehicles
| all the time. They're often intoxicated but not always.
| There's just something about flashing red lights that
| attracts driver attention and all too often the car
| follows.
|
| This is why we put the BRT (big red truck) behind the
| rescue scene and park it at a 45 degree angle. It weighs
| 15x as much as a car so it won't move much when a car hits
| it, and we want the car to bounce off sideways and away
| from the rescuers (us) when it happens.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| 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?
| kevingadd wrote:
| Big assumption to make if it turns out the numbers and
| data don't scale up once you do large-scale deployment!
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| You're not wrong. This should be done with great care.
| enchiridion wrote:
| It's not a fallacy, it's a risk analysis that will save
| lives.
| gwern wrote:
| > Businesses are also shifting their focus away from "AI-as-a-
| service" vendors who promise to carry out tasks straight out of
| the box, like magic. Instead, they are spending more money on
| data-preparation software, according to Brendan Burke, a senior
| analyst at PitchBook. He says that pure-play AI companies like
| Palantir Technologies Inc. and C3.ai Inc. "have achieved less-
| than-outstanding outcomes," while data science companies like
| Databricks Inc. "are achieving higher valuations and superior
| outcomes."
|
| Palantir is now a "pure-play AI company"? (And, for that matter,
| a market cap of $50b is 'less than outstanding'?)
| gipp wrote:
| > And, for that matter, a market cap of $50b is 'less than
| outstanding'?
|
| Less than outstanding _outcomes_
|
| Market cap is _their_ outcome, not their _clients '_ outcomes.
| The two are decidedly different things, especially in our weird
| distorted market.
| gwern wrote:
| Burke specifies "valuations" as well as outcomes, so the
| observation stands. (Not that Palantir is any kind of
| monopoly... If you will recall, the usual criticism is that
| it's just a consulting shop with zero moat or monopoly.)
| gumby wrote:
| "AI" is just a buzzword name for "software" these days
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 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 <whatever> 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.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| Your certainty in it not existing to a level of alarm is just
| as ridiculous as your argument that "Tesla, et al" are lying of
| the capabilities of AI.
|
| Yes, most people do not know what the difference between ML,
| AI, neural nets, and computation is - nonetheless we've reached
| the point in humanity where there is no question a pandora's
| box has been opened. There is very real reason why there would
| even be gag orders on public information given an entity
| achieved some level of strong AI.
|
| And to your point of it just requiring more training, yeah, it
| kinda is that simple for the majority of tasks which is also
| enough to offer serious contemplation. A very wide depth of
| weak AI solutions that fake "strong ai" will probably be more
| dangerous long-term than a true "strong ai" solution due to the
| fine-tuning problems it would naturally have.
|
| Big discussion, overall we need to be less certain on the state
| of things because there is very good reason why such an event
| would _not even be obvious when it happened_. A time of uncanny
| valley at the most and then you realize oh shit, AI has been
| running the world since... APT and DDoS patterns.
| gibsonf1 wrote:
| 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.
| esalman wrote:
| Proposition to change the term "artificial intelligence" to
| "learned habits".
|
| There are a lot of tasks that we humans do the same way as a
| machine does- repeating a set of mental and/or physical
| patterns until it becomes second nature to us. Those are
| called "habits" and those are precisely what machines are
| good at doing.
| ajja wrote:
| or even not that -
|
| Microsoft's Kate Crawford: 'AI is neither artificial nor
| intelligent' (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun
| /06/microsoft...)
| robrenaud wrote:
| Does Magnus Carlsen understand why chess moves are good? Does
| high depth stockfish or AlphaZero understand why moves are
| good? Why is Carlsen so relatively bad at chess with his
| understanding of the why?
| caditinpiscinam wrote:
| > Why is Carlsen so relatively bad at chess with his
| understanding of the why?
|
| I think you have it backwards. Stockfish probably could
| tell you which specific 30-depth line changed its
| evaluation, while a human player is much more likely to
| play based on feel and intuition
| caditinpiscinam wrote:
| Even if our ML systems were meaningfully intelligent, there's
| still the issue of proper training. You can't teach humans to
| be a safe drivers by showing them a huge slideshow of dash-
| cam images. Why do we expect ML to do any better?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Even if our ML systems were meaningfully intelligent,
| there's still the issue of proper training. You can't teach
| humans to be a safe drivers by showing them a huge
| slideshow of dash-cam images.
|
| That's an interesting concept to explore:
|
| I would _guess_ that videos could improve people 's
| driving: Imagine new drivers; showing them videos of
| different situations, actions, and their outcomes, may
| help. The same videos might not help an experienced driver,
| but they might be helped by videos of more complex
| situations or by videos tailored to a specific driving
| skill.
|
| But I'd be interested in research: When does such training
| help people and when does it not? What aspects of the
| training are effective or not?
|
| And can that be applied to ML? It may be the old fallacy of
| conceiving of computers as 'thinking' like people, which
| Dijkstra compared to conceiving of submarines swimming like
| us.
| caditinpiscinam wrote:
| I could see videos being effective. When I was younger I
| watched a lot of those "near miss" / "driving fails"
| youtube compilations, and I think they gave me a better
| intuition for how things tend to go wrong on the road. It
| would be interesting to see a drivers ed program that
| included material like that.
|
| On the other hand, when I watch a dash-cam video, I'm
| already have an understanding of how drivers think, how
| pedestrians behave, how weather conditions affect
| driving, etc. I could watch a video and tell you "the
| driver ran the stop-sign because it was hidden behind the
| tree branch, and hit the other car because the road was
| wet and they couldn't brake effectively". I don't know if
| I could learn to recognize those subtleties from watching
| video alone, which is what it seems like we're trying to
| achieve with ML.
| ChefboyOG wrote:
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > Even if this is the case, why does it matter?
|
| Because people are using Deep-learning over single-lens
| cameras to replace depth-perception... and then wondering
| why the cars that do this run into stationary objects with
| flashing lights.
| https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2021/INOA-PE21020-1893.PDF
|
| No one really cares about where deep learning works. People
| are complaining about all the areas where deep learning is
| failing, with dramatic and deadly results.
| timr wrote:
| The semantic understanding problem, more generally, is
| under-acknowledged in autonomous driving.
|
| A human can tell the difference of a child standing by
| the side of a road, about to throw a ball into the road;
| vs a child standing at the side of a road, waiting for a
| bus. A human will _slow down_ in anticipation of the
| likely outcome. A robot without state awareness will be
| extremely limited in available responses.
|
| Without a useful state model of the universe (i.e.
| concept awareness), you're limited to purely reactive
| behaviors.
| dragontamer wrote:
| That's still ignoring the problem. "Self-driving" tech is
| no where near that. You gotta set your expectations
| correctly.
|
| We're at the "Firetruck with flashing lights was hit at
| full speed on FSD mode" stage of the problem. This means
| that the depth-field mapping broke. The car was unable to
| tell how far away the firetruck was, and plowed full
| speed into the firetruck.
|
| Its very telling that the other self-driving companies
| are using LIDAR to build the depth map, instead of trying
| to create depth-maps through deep learning.
| buitreVirtual wrote:
| 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).
| skywhopper wrote:
| The main problem is _human overconfidence_ in the resulting
| functions, which are often measuring things humans didn 't
| realize was embedded in the data (eg with tumor
| recognition), or are utterly hopeless at representing the
| infinite edge cases that the real world can present (eg
| self-driving cars).
|
| It's one thing to have hoped that these methods could solve
| these problems when the improvements were coming rapidly,
| but there will always be a limit to how well these systems
| can perform. And the problem is that they fail in entirely
| non-intuitive ways, making human oversight to correct for
| errors very difficult or impossible as well.
| gibsonf1 wrote:
| The issue is that people think that neural net technology
| is AI when, in fact, there is 0 Intelligence there. Which
| is fine, except when you have people like Elon Musk, Google
| and others thinking that there is I there, just need to
| throw more processors and data at it, and I will magically
| emerge. We now face a growing number of non-I cars on the
| road starting to kill people, so it's a real urgent problem
| that all who use neural nets need to, at minimum,
| understand that that tech will never give I and to
| communicate that fact to their customers and their goals
| with using it.
| clairity wrote:
| the problem is the unboundedness of the failure modes of
| (the current generation of) AI, not with how well it can
| approximate hard functions within regions of interest
| (which is essentially always a small subset of the range of
| said hard functions).
| nradov wrote:
| All true. But due to the hype we often see people trying to
| use overly complex ML models in problem domains where
| simpler deterministic statistical techniques such as linear
| regression analysis would be just as accurate with lower
| costs and better testability.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| While I agree that AI in current forms can be very useful,
| I believe that the problem of e.g. driverless taxis
| requires understanding of other humans and empathizing with
| their intentions to be truly viable. Driving is a social
| activity, and the current self-driving tech is about as
| convincing as trying to carry on a conversation with Alexa
| at a party. I do believe that we need AGI before self-
| driving will be more than a better cruise control.
|
| I think the better cruise control is very useful and I love
| to see it, but Tesla's marketing of it as "full self-
| driving" is disingenuous as best, and industry-chilling +
| deadly (as we've seen) at worst.
| candiodari wrote:
| That's doesn't seem true. In the short term AI algorithms
| clearly understand why they do things. Yes, the time horizon
| is obviously shorter (not in games, but in the real world,
| sure), but the same can often be said of humans.
|
| If you see humans responding to animals that don't use eyes
| (e.g. bats, insects) fuckups are a constant. We are _very_
| bad at interacting with anything that doesn 't have something
| similar to our eyes to observe the world.
|
| And third, the world has almost entirely been rebuilt to
| compensate for human observation flaws. It's not just
| staircases having a step height that works well with humans,
| but for example highway intersections have been changed 100
| times _until_ we found one that humans respond to in a manner
| different from slamming into the split. The same is true for
| many intersections (I first started realizing this when
| reading an article that an intersection with a bridge was
| modified because 5 people died when a car crushed them
| against the side of the bridge. It was redesigned. Now we
| find that an algorithm with an entirely different set of
| observations makes different mistakes ... not really that
| strange. Perhaps we should start modifying streets algorithms
| misjudge).
|
| For example the warning cones for when you have an accident
| or road works or the like have also been adapted many times
| because version X was "causing too many accidents".
|
| So in a bunch of cases it's neither that humans don't have
| big observational flaws or that algorithms have many more.
| It's just that we largely eliminated the human ones. Not by
| eliminating them from humans, but by eliminating them from
| the world.
|
| Same is true on the inside of buildings.
| VRay wrote:
| Hey man, if we're rebuilding roads for the sake of self
| driving cars, let's just go back to ubiquitous light rail
| instead, like we had before cars got popular. This whole
| self-driving industry is so ridiculous when you consider
| that this has been a solved problem for over a hundred
| years..
| Nasrudith wrote:
| The problem is rail is horrible at traffic handling and
| uses time multiplexing. One guilded age unethical
| activity was deliberately creating "traffic jams" on
| competitor's lines. While rail is good and could use
| expansion it makes a dubious complete replacement. It
| works wonderfully with shared routes but fails at
| handling the "amalgamation" part.
|
| Even Japan still uses trucks for the last mile and they
| have embraced it enough to have "bullet train suburbs"
| around stations.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > And third, the world has almost entirely been rebuilt to
| compensate for human observation flaws.
|
| I don't entirely agree with what I think your point is.
| Fundamentally, humans are pretty great at using context to
| work their way through a variety of unfamiliar situations.
| The work we do on intersections is about tuning. Even in a
| bad intersection with horrible flaws, 99.9% or more of all
| humans navigating it will be successful. The reason we keep
| tuning them is because our tolerance for death is zero. 1
| death for every 100M miles driven is pretty good, but many
| people still find it completely intolerable. We're going to
| keep tuning.
|
| But I don't think that means that making roads safely
| navigable by algorithms is going to be a simple matter of
| tuning them.
| nova22033 wrote:
| _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_
|
| Would help if Elon Musk didn't tweet out ridiculous claims
| about FSD..
| mjohn wrote:
| https://archive.is/FFrU5
| tdrdt wrote:
| 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 time it has areas with a lot of flaws. This doesn't matter
| when you are still working on something but for production it is
| useless.
|
| ML has it's use in a lot of areas where the outcome doesn't have
| to be perfect. But I am still not convinced it is 'production
| ready'.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| 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.
| danschumann wrote:
| Harder to debug and harder to fix
| amelius wrote:
| Yes, would you trust a car with an error rate of 0.001%?
| mplewis wrote:
| Is the failure mode that I die in a lithium fire?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Tesla's drives on a highway, encounters a difficult situation,
| turns off autopilot, and voala, the error is now counted
| against the human!
|
| 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!
| CJefferson wrote:
| The question is, what do you mean by "trust"?
|
| Would I be happy for it to be driving around on the road?
| Probably.
|
| Would I be happy for it to drive me, and it's 'my fault' if I
| don't notice it's gone wrong and kill someone? No.
|
| So far Tesla (for example) seems nowhere near the point where
| they would accept responsibility for crashes -- they still
| always blame the driver for not paying attention.
| bsenftner wrote:
| That's the key tell right there: Musk always blames the
| customer and never takes responsibility.
| rpadovani wrote:
| Well, what's the baseline?
|
| I'm all in for a way to reduce any accident.
| LightG wrote:
| But there's a choice involved. Reduce baseline accidents, but
| increase being exposed to completely random events that will
| kill you.
|
| Nope. I won't be part of that statistic.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| Anytime you get on the road you are exposing yourself to
| the possibility that a suicidal or drunk or elderly person
| with dementia will kill you.
|
| Personally, I would like to have very rigorous driving
| tests for old people and remove licenses for people with
| DUIs. The obvious question then is, how are old people and
| drunks supposed to get around. Self driving cars seem like
| an option eventually. It makes you safer compared to the
| alternative, which is we generally wait until someone is
| killed before we permanently remove someone's license.
| LightG wrote:
| I have some chance of controlling the outcome of the
| suicidal/drunk/elderly driver situation.
|
| I have no chance of controlling a buggy AI.
|
| I like my chances better :-)
| kemitche wrote:
| We make those choices all the time.
|
| Taking a plane instead of driving is similar. You lose
| direct control, but it's orders of magnitude safer.
|
| I'll take a 0.001% chance of death over a 0.1% chance every
| time.
| LightG wrote:
| I'll take 0.1% chance of death which I (arguably) can
| control, over a 0.001% chance of death which I absolutely
| cannot control at all.
|
| It's so clear to me. Yes, taking a plane is similar, but
| I only take that risk a couple of times a year.
|
| The 0.1% (to me) is a probability number as I have some
| control over each event. The probability is so low that
| it likely never will happen.
|
| The 0.001% number is an eventual outcome number. "Run the
| experiment X amount of times, and death will happen
| 0.001% of the time". And it's more relevant than flying
| as we drive so much more.
|
| Nope! Thanks!
| rpadovani wrote:
| That's not how statistic works
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I wonder how many people say this whose personal driving
| habits make them much higher risk than the baseline.
| LightG wrote:
| Regardless.
|
| Nothing short of 100% reliability will convince me that
| handing over control to a closed-box AI is better.
|
| And even then, one small "bug" could change that
| conclusion. It just takes one weird, anomoly in the real
| world to mess things up. And maybe handling those things
| will eventually be perfected*. Maybe. But I don't intend
| to be the beta tester for that.
|
| *I know the default is to hand control back to the
| driver, but then you may as well be driving (which I
| enjoy). "Shut up and drive" is far more fun than being
| your cars KPI manager.
| grey-area wrote:
| Average humans have a higher error rate.
| amelius wrote:
| If you classify an image 30 times per second, then 0.001% is
| quite a large error rate.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| Don't forget - the error might be reproduce-able. As in, it
| will error rarely, but at that one obstacle, with that one
| light config, it will error repeatedly and constantly.
|
| AI related car accidents and deaths will have special
| places and dates, were they will repeat annually.
| maxerickson wrote:
| You said car, not image classifier.
|
| If errors in any subsystem surface out to the car, well
| then okay. But it's not unlikely that the overall system
| would deal with an error in the image classifier.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| Pay wall so I can't read the article. But can someone
| comment on what 0.001% error means in real world scenarios?
|
| To keep the maths easy, that's 18 wrong frames/10min. So
| roughly 2/3 of a second.
|
| If these images are spread out, maybe it's fine. If it's
| failing on certain types of images, then those images could
| be grouped and 2/3rds of a second is more than enough time
| for a serious failure.
| ars wrote:
| No they don't, humans have a error rate of between 0.00001
| and 0.000000001 depending on how you measure it.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| For me the question is how high is the error rate for a non
| drunk non sleepy non elderly non reckless human, since that
| is what my car would replace.
|
| in my 20s you would need to bring the reckless back in.
| rpadovani wrote:
| Problem is, you are not alone on the road. And if somebody
| else does something really stupid, you can die as a
| consequence, without any chance to avoid it.
|
| We are definitely not there yet, but I think of myself as a
| decent driver, and some assistant tools on high-end models
| are way better (just faster, probably) than me predicting
| stuff. For the first year this summer, I've driven a car
| that was quicker than I in an emergency break situation:
| while I started breaking, it depressed the pedal, and I was
| quite surprised, 'cause the car in front of me didn't begin
| breaking yet.
| taneq wrote:
| Only if you're the only driver being replaced.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| There's also the fact though, that if you're elderly you
| can't really avoid being a worse driver. I know
| particularly in rural areas where there's no public
| transportation, a lot of elderly people would accept an
| error rate higher than what their own driving used to be.
| It seems pretty tough for the rest of us to deny them
| access to a technology like that while it's in the
| interstitial stage.
| LightG wrote:
| But, I assume, a lower completely random error rate, which an
| AI might produce.
| DrNuke wrote:
| Point is, we/they all knew the unavoidable AI's flaws way before
| the s*it hit the fan, the underlying sci-fi assumptions
| undermining the science... and the problem is, some states' wild
| de-regulation allowing deployment in public, commonal spaces
| (real and virtual) being managed like a gigantic theme park and
| joe mcjoes becoming the guinea pigs for such, well-advised
| experiments.
| txbuck wrote:
| "For Tesla, Facebook and Others, Misusing AI and Pretending It's
| a Magic Bullet Is Getting Harder To Ignore"
| amatix wrote:
| And at the same time, the UK government is looking at reversing
| the GDPR review right for automated decisions:
|
| _Article 22 guarantees that people can seek a human review of an
| algorithmic decision, such as an online decision to award a loan,
| or a recruitment aptitude test that uses algorithms to
| automatically filter candidates._
|
| _In May, a government task force set up to look for deregulatory
| dividends from Brexit, led by the leading Brexiter Iain Duncan
| Smith, argued that Article 22 should be removed because it made
| it "burdensome, costly and impractical" for organisations to use
| AI to automate routine processes._
|
| _The idea is part of broad-based plans for a big overhaul of the
| UK data regime after Brexit which ministers say will boost
| innovation, and deliver what Oliver Dowden, the culture
| secretary, has called a "data dividend" for the UK economy._
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/519832b6-e22d-40bf-9971-1af3d3745...
|
| (Edit: formatting/link)
| te_chris wrote:
| These people are such chumps. Automated hellscape for thee, but
| not for me.
| andrepd wrote:
| Oh they are not chumps. They know exactly what they're doing.
| flipbrad wrote:
| I advise companies on GDPR compliance, and art 22 is usually
| the least of their concerns. Why not offer a right to human
| review, if your algorithm is producing "legal or similarly
| significant effects"? If you're not 100% convinced in the
| accuracy and fairness of your automated system (two entirely
| separate GDPR rules), you can avoid issues down the line by
| offering individuals the ability to flag a dodgy decision and
| have a human look into it.
| tomp wrote:
| Is this another one of those GDPR articles that has no teeth? I
| cannot imagine how Google can keep running it's spam filters,
| Facebook it's automated bans, and Twitter its algorithmic feed,
| while abiding by this.
| [deleted]
| londons_explore wrote:
| Presumably it means a spammer can send a spam email, and then
| when it goes into the spam folder, has the right to ask
| google to review that decision.
|
| Sounds fair enough, especially if the spammer either has to
| pay the costs of the review (ie. a few dollars), or is
| limited to being only allowed one review per month/year to
| prevent abuse.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-04 23:02 UTC)