Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's very generous of you to sacrifice other people's family members in service of your vision of a new, more perfect society. But if you were all that serious about your "killing people saves lives" vision you'd be out there walking back and forth in front of Uber cars on their test tracks.

But since you aren't, I'm guessing even you don't really believe what you're saying. Which is good, because a key assumption of your theory is proven wrong by the article you're commenting on.

Yes, these vehicles will eventually save lives once their error rate drops below that of a human driver. But there's no reason to think that running over a bunch of real people is necessary for progress until these cars work well in simulations. As the article explains, they get orders of magnitude more testing done in simulation than on the road.

Uber's rush to test things in the real world was not about advancing the technology or saving lives. It was about getting a short-term commercial advantage on the cheap.

And likewise? Your spirited defense of the status quo also sacrifices innocent lives. Over 30,000 Americans die in traffic accidents each year. Just how much better do autonomous cars need to be in order to be acceptable to test in the real world?

The data and experience gathered from real-world testing should (I'm not saying "will") accelerate the progress to the point you mention - "once their error rate drops below that of a human driver".

Let's look at the Uber case, since everyone infers so much from it. One fatality. One. And the program was immediately shut down. And how did it happen? Engineers had deliberately disabled the automated emergency braking system to reduce "erratic behavior", but had no automated notification to the driver. And the driver was distracted, doing data entry for the test as he was instructed to do. If the emergency braking system had been on, it would have stopped the car on time - they have the data for this.

This sure looks like human error to me.

And that single accident put Uber's program drastically behind schedule, relative to more cautious/thorough competitors. Uber paid a market price for its eager carelessness.

This one incident is not the cause of Uber being behind schedule. They shut down their program in California because they didn't want to follow the rules. So Uber moves to a state with lax rules and a woman paid for it with her life.

If Uber was more focused on doing things the right way their program would be much further ahead.

To test in the real world, they need to be at least as good unless we have strong reason to believe that surplus deaths are the only way to move forward.

We don't have reason to believe that. Even Uber now agrees that more simulation should have been done, and they're trying to catch up. All the necessary data for this could have been gleaned from instrumenting human-driven cars, and then testing the object recognition, object avoidance, and other driving algorithms against the resulting data.

Uber's Arizona death wasn't "human error". It was negligence. They also weren't "behind schedule" in any meaningful sense; some exec picked a too-aggressive goal, and people cut corners in a vain attempt to meet it. They shouldn't just be paying a "market price". They should be facing charges for criminal negligence leading to involuntary manslaughter.

>Yes, these vehicles will eventually save lives once their error rate drops below that of a human driver.

Aren't self driving error rates already below human drivers? The fatality rate is extremely skewed by one incident in which the system detected an obstacle but wasn't allowed to stop the car because it was disabled (so... not a failure of the self driving aspect of that system) and another in which a partial self driving system warned a driver repeatedly to take the wheel, but they did not.

In both instances the problem was a failure to force action by the human drivers (or failed reliance on them). In the former case, the system would have braked, in the second, the system should brake instead of asking for help from the driver.

Meanwhile the overall crash rate for self-driving cars is lower, correct?

> Meanwhile the overall crash rate for self-driving cars is lower, correct?

I don't think that's correct in general, and especially not so if you compare the conditions that each are driven under. Said a bit differently, the human error rate is in all conditions (rain / snow / nighttime / unmarked roads / gravel) where most self-driving miles are on well-marked city and highway roads in near ideal conditions.

The Uber system would not have braked (and didn't) the system that would have braked was the Volvo system built into the car which Uber purposefully shut off. If Uber cant drive on a clear dry night without killing people they shouldn't be allowed on public roads endagering people who didn't sign up to be around these cars.

I'd be interested to see your stats comparing the two crash rates. Note that you have to compare equal conditions; most self-driving tests are done in unrealistically good ones. (Which is fine for pilot programs, but makes the stats hard to compare.)

But you're already no-true-scotsmanning your way to giving the self-driving cars unrealistically good scores. Yes, a cause behind the Uber crash is indeed Uber disabling a safety system they thought unnecessary. But we have no reason to believe some other companies aren't also either turning off or just never adding safety systems.

On the other hand, if we're worried about the performance of these systems, shouldn't we be testing them in ideal conditions before submitting them to suboptimal conditions?

Yes, which is why I explicitly said it was fine for pilot programs.

My objection is not to better testing. It's to bad comparisons. Including, as here, with somebody handwaving at data that, at best, couldn't answer the question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com