Remember the Uber self-driving car that killed a woman crossing the street?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Nope, not remotely convincing. It’s a terrible analogy. Again, you are simply claiming that if one technical thing can be improved in one way, then all can be in any possible way. It’s nonsense.

The difference between flying a short and longer distance is in no way comparable or analogous to the difference between programming an AI to cope with a simple situation or a much more complex one. You have not provided any argument that says they are in any way the same problem.

And, no, there isn’t an analogous dangerous middle-ground, you didn’t even bother to argue for that one, just stated it as a unsupported claim! That middle-ground is a very specific issue, specific to automation and to AI.

Nor have you shown that there is the same exponential effect of increasing the number of variables, rather than a linear increase in difficulty.

I don’t get your tech evangelism. I dislike that political tendency in general, I have to say, it’s strongly connected to libertarianism and rich-white-guys.

Firstly, look up the definition of analogy. (Hint: it doesn’t mean exactly the same.)

Secondly, please stop bringing race, gender etc. into discussions that have nothing to do with it. It’s pretty poor form to try and undermine an argument by aluding to gender, race, wealth etc. makes you seem like you don’t actually have a decent argument in the first place.

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

And what does that have to do with the issue of the exponentially-increasing complexity in dealing with real world conditions in real busy cities, or the issue of the dangerous nature of the middle-ground between driver-assist and full autonomy, that leads to issues like this case, where the back-up driver gets bored and stops paying attention?

How does the analogy work? You are talking about going from short distances to long distances – where is the analogous dangerous middle-ground and exponential complexity?

You can’t just make a lazy analogy that ‘some unrelated tech has improved in some unrelated way in the past, therefore all tech will always solve all problems'

Is flying for a few yards hugely less complex than flying a transatlantic route?

Yes.

Is autonomous driving in Arizona hugely less complex than autonomous driving in Moscow in winter?

Yes.

Exponential complexity: check

Did anybody die when they were trying to master long distance flight?

Yes.

Was there a period when long distance flight was considerably more dangerous than short distance flight?

Yes

Dangerous middle ground: check

The analogy is a very good one.

I didn’t say that all tech would solve all problems. You just made that up.

Autonomous driving is now at level 4. The company that achieved it did so in 10 years.

You can try and diminish that accomplishment if you want but it just makes you look a bit ridiculous.

Nope, not remotely convincing. It’s a terrible analogy. Again, you are simply claiming that if one technical thing can be improved in one way, then all can be in any possible way. It’s nonsense.

The difference between flying a short and longer distance is in no way comparable or analogous to the difference between programming an AI to cope with a simple situation or a much more complex one. You have not provided any argument that says they are in any way the same problem.

And, no, there isn’t an analogous dangerous middle-ground, you didn’t even bother to argue for that one, just stated it as a unsupported claim! That middle-ground is a very specific issue, specific to automation and to AI.

Nor have you shown that there is the same exponential effect of increasing the number of variables, rather than a linear increase in difficulty.

I don’t get your tech evangelism. I dislike that political tendency in general, I have to say, it’s strongly connected to libertarianism and rich-white-guys and a kind of fake-liberalism.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

And what does that have to do with the issue of the exponentially-increasing complexity in dealing with real world conditions in real busy cities, or the issue of the dangerous nature of the middle-ground between driver-assist and full autonomy, that leads to issues like this case, where the back-up driver gets bored and stops paying attention?

How does the analogy work? You are talking about going from short distances to long distances – where is the analogous dangerous middle-ground and exponential complexity?

You can’t just make a lazy analogy that ‘some unrelated tech has improved in some unrelated way in the past, therefore all tech will always solve all problems'

Is flying for a few yards hugely less complex than flying a transatlantic route?

Yes.

Is autonomous driving in Arizona hugely less complex than autonomous driving in Moscow in winter?

Yes.

Exponential complexity: check

Did anybody die when they were trying to master long distance flight?

Yes.

Was there a period when long distance flight was considerably more dangerous than short distance flight?

Yes

Dangerous middle ground: check

The analogy is a very good one.

I didn’t say that all tech would solve all problems. You just made that up.

Autonomous driving is now at level 4. The company that achieved it did so in 10 years.

You can try and diminish that accomplishment if you want but it just makes you look a bit ridiculous.

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

One Taxi Service in one city-After how many years -And what busy metropolis were the 10 milion miles clocked up in? Don’t hold your breath waiting for this miracle.

Ten years from founding to launching a completely driverless taxi service. If you think that’s slow progress then you clearly have no understanding of the challenges involved. The miles were clicked up in many places but mainly silicon valley and Phoenix, Arizona.

I do have an Idea of the challenges involved.That’s why level 5 autonomy  on any road may never happen.

Though I might have a go at
Though I might have a go at the Wright brothers for the environmental damage flying does, and for how my grandparents came within a few hundred yards of being blown up in the Blitz. Tech has unforeseen consequences, not all of it good.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You give no evidence for your first claim so I’m discounting it.

Re the Wright brothers, clearly you didn’t read my comment, or you wouldn’t make such a terrible analogy that doesn’t work at all. Why do you think that analogy is at all relevant?

A short flight in a field? Really? In what way is that of any use to anyone. Who wants to fly from one end of a field to another? How is that in any way comparable to a flight from London to New York.

Argus Tuft wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

One Taxi Service in one city-After how many years -And what busy metropolis were the 10 milion miles clocked up in? Don’t hold your breath waiting for this miracle.

Ten years from founding to launching a completely driverless taxi service.

If you think that’s slow progress then you clearly have no understanding of the challenges involved.

The miles were clicked up in many places but mainly silicon valley and Phoenix, Arizona.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The better solution is to have far fewer cars and keep them away from vulnerable road-users.

And Phoenix Arizona? Really? A very-low-density city, low latitude city, with high levels of sunlight and a desert climate, wide straight roads laid out on a grid pattern, relatively few pedestrians and clear sightlines? And jaywalking laws. In what possible way is that representative of most of the world’s cities? Get back to me when it works in, say, Moscow. Or even London.

Driverless cars will result in fewer cars and more road space for segregated infrastructure so you get your two wishes.

Seems a bit bizarre criticising the company for launching first in a relatively benign environment. I can imagine you having a pop at the Wright brothers for not going transatlantic on their first go.