Sure, it's a sign that we don't "understand this stuff properly", but you can say the same about human brains. Is it a red flag that we use language to communicate with each other instead of manipulating nerve impulses directly?
From an almighty creator's, yes. Direct telepathic communication is much more efficient compared to spoken language. Just look at the Protoss and where they went, leaving us behind :-(
Citation needed
When self-driving cars were first coming out a professor of mine said "They only have to be as a good as humans." It took a while but now i can say why that's insufficient: human errors are corrected by discipline and justice. Corporations dissipate responsibility by design. When self-driving cars kill, no one goes to jail. Corporate fines are notoriously ineffective, just a cost of doing business.
And even without the legal power, most people do try to drive well enough to bit injure each other which is a different calculus from prematurely taking products to market for financial gain.
- DUI
- speeding
- distraction
In other words all human errors. Machines don’t drink, shouldn’t speed if programmed correctly, and are never distracted fiddling with their radio controls or looking down at their phones. So if they are at least as good as a human driver in general (obeying traffic laws, not hitting obstructions, etc.), they will be safer than a human driver in these areas that really matter.
What do you care more about—that there is somebody specific to blame for an accident or that there are less human deaths?
0: https://www.idrivesafely.com/defensive-driving/trending/most... and many other sources you can find
I do think the point about how companies are treated vs humans is a good one. Tbh though, I'm not sure it matters much in the instance of driver-less cars. There isn't mass outrage when driver less cars kill people because that (to us) is an acceptable risk. I feel whatever fines/punishments employed against companies would only marginally reduce deaths, if that. I honestly think laws against drunk driving only marginally reduce drunk driving.
I'm not saying we shouldn't punish drunk driving... just that anything short of an instant death penalty for driving drunk probably wouldn't dissuade many people.
If they did, we'd be living in utopia already.
But also, by the same token, generative AI errors are similarly "corrected" by fine-tuning and RLHF. In both cases, you don't actually fix it - you just make it less likely to happen again.
At the same time, humans are also unreliable as hell , push us much more than 8 hours a day of actual thinking work and our answers start to get crappy.
I hope you never need any medicine!
It should be an HN rule that in order to type out variations of this sentence you have to also prove you have a degree in neuroscience.