I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.Well I have seen enough official research, basically >96% of ALL accidents is because of human error.
So in all these news items about self driving cars I would really like to see a very decent analyses how humans would perform in the same conditions.
I highly doubt if that would be any better.
Humans would be perfored 99.99999% better. And in the accidents where there as a fatality, the human drivers under the same cirucmstances would not have caused a fatality or even an injury.
Humans are good at somethings, machines are better at others.
I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.Well I have seen enough official research, basically >96% of ALL accidents is because of human error.
So in all these news items about self driving cars I would really like to see a very decent analyses how humans would perform in the same conditions.
I highly doubt if that would be any better.
Humans would be perfored 99.99999% better. And in the accidents where there as a fatality, the human drivers under the same cirucmstances would not have caused a fatality or even an injury.
Humans are good at somethings, machines are better at others.And that is based on what research?
Like I said before, more than 96% of all accidents is because of human error.
Following that logic I find it VERY unlikely a human being would perform better.
Let alone so much better as you would suggest.
Unless laws of physics and statistics are biased somehow.
I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.Well I have seen enough official research, basically >96% of ALL accidents is because of human error.
So in all these news items about self driving cars I would really like to see a very decent analyses how humans would perform in the same conditions.
I highly doubt if that would be any better.
Humans would be perfored 99.99999% better. And in the accidents where there as a fatality, the human drivers under the same cirucmstances would not have caused a fatality or even an injury.
Humans are good at somethings, machines are better at others.And that is based on what research?
Like I said before, more than 96% of all accidents is because of human error.
Following that logic I find it VERY unlikely a human being would perform better.
Let alone so much better as you would suggest.
Unless laws of physics and statistics are biased somehow.
Have you read any of the accident reports where a self-driving car resulted in a fatality? In every case so far the human would have avidoed the accident. The best documented accident of where the machine failed and the human driver was much better is the single car accident where the self-driving car ran into a tree killing the driver in California. The driver had documented and reported the problem on a stretch of road where the car set-driving controlled car continually fails to stay on the road.
If you look at all of the other deaths involving a self-driving car you will find a human would have avoided them. As for the non-fatal crashes, humans would have avoided over 99.9999% of those accidents too.
Have you read any of the accident reports where a self-driving car resulted in a fatality? In every case so far the human would have avidoed the accident. The best documented accident of where the machine failed and the human driver was much better is the single car accident where the self-driving car ran into a tree killing the driver in California. The driver had documented and reported the problem on a stretch of road where the car set-driving controlled car continually fails to stay on the road.
If you look at all of the other deaths involving a self-driving car you will find a human would have avoided them. As for the non-fatal crashes, humans would have avoided over 99.9999% of those accidents too.
You're using a loop argument, and yes there has been billions of similar accidents with humans.
The whole idea of the 96% number is that humans DO NOT always avoid accidents.
If you want to compare numbers you need to it fair and take a look at the whole picture.
Not just a few accidents that hit the news and think that's a representative number to prove that self-driving cars are bad or something.
That is at least not how thought me to do proper science and statistics.
Also it's not helping to bring that 96% number down.
So they have to look for alternatives right?
You're using a loop argument, and yes there has been billions of similar accidents with humans.
The whole idea of the 96% number is that humans DO NOT always avoid accidents.
If you want to compare numbers you need to it fair and take a look at the whole picture.
Not just a few accidents that hit the news and think that's a representative number to prove that self-driving cars are bad or something.
That is at least not how thought me to do proper science and statistics.
Also it's not helping to bring that 96% number down.
So they have to look for alternatives right?I'm not sure if you are missing the point, or trying to avoid it. Several recent incidents have shown serious holes in the systems in these autonomous cars. They aren't failing to avoid an accident, as a distracted human might. They are so poorly designed they aren't even TRYING to avoid some reasonably common crash scenarios.
Have you read any of the accident reports where a self-driving car resulted in a fatality? In every case so far the human would have avidoed the accident.
The best documented accident of where the machine failed and the human driver was much better is the single car accident where the self-driving car ran into a tree killing the driver in California. The driver had documented and reported the problem on a stretch of road where the car set-driving controlled car continually fails to stay on the road.
I'm sure the software has been updated.
Why? Whatever would lead you to that conclusion? People who take no great care with the first pass of a product don't suddenly wake up and become fantastic engineers.
Have you read any of the accident reports where a self-driving car resulted in a fatality? In every case so far the human would have avidoed the accident.
You seem to be under the illusion that a zero-accident rate should be attained before deploying these.
That's never happened before with any new tech, why should it happen now? SO far they seem to be doing quite well.The best documented accident of where the machine failed and the human driver was much better is the single car accident where the self-driving car ran into a tree killing the driver in California. The driver had documented and reported the problem on a stretch of road where the car set-driving controlled car continually fails to stay on the road.
I'm sure the software has been updated.
The "specific set of circumstances" is driving on a slippery surface. There's not many variants on that and computers already do it better than humans. The computers are so good that we've already passed laws mandating their installation to help humans drive better.
More worrying it also points out that the anti-lock brakes may cause poor braking performance on snow and ice, but they cannot be disabled.
The "specific set of circumstances" is driving on a slippery surface. There's not many variants on that and computers already do it better than humans. The computers are so good that we've already passed laws mandating their installation to help humans drive better.
Funny you say that, but the manual of the last two cars I have owned have stated the traction control should be disabled in snow and ice as it get's confused and may prevent the vehicle from moving.
More worrying it also points out that the anti-lock brakes may cause poor braking performance on snow and ice, but they cannot be disabled.
More worrying it also points out that the anti-lock brakes may cause poor braking performance on snow and ice, but they cannot be disabled.
Who wrote that? The Stig?
I'm sure a normal human would be worse.
Do you have any data points to support your beliefs?
We have provided many data points which have shown software is making mistakes that humans, even impaired humans would not make.
[It's unlike aviation in that an update can be transmitted all over the world while people are sleeping.
Do you have any data points to support your beliefs?
We have provided many data points which have shown software is making mistakes that humans, even impaired humans would not make.
Yep. In your worldview the world is full of runaway cars that fail to brake and go out of control at the drop of a hat when anybody who's been outside lately knows this isn't so.
We've also shown that there's mistake so stupid that a human can't make it.
The point is this: Software con only get better as more self driving cars are put on the roads. It's like aviation, every crash leads to an investigation and usually new procedures/practices.
It's unlike aviation in that an update can be transmitted all over the world while people are sleeping.
In a few years from now cars will be far safer than humans. We just need to get over the initial hurdles.
Yes, some people will be killed by self-driving cars today but the future savings will be worth it. That's where your blind spot appears to be.
[It's unlike aviation in that an update can be transmitted all over the world while people are sleeping.
Well, we all know what forced pushed updates can do. I'm not just talking laptops and phones.
My wife was driving her 3 month old MINI on the highway at 65mph when the engine cut out. She managed to get to the shoulder. She called me to get our AAA info. I said half-jokingly that BMW must have pushed a firmware update. Well, she called the dealership while waiting for the tow truck. Yup, that's exactly what happened. They bricked her car at 65mph.
Did you not read about the Therac 25 or the Dreamliner 787?
At this statge in development of selfdriving car software can you explain why trees and parked cars are still be mistaken for roads and killing people?