This happens to human drivers all the time, and humans are really bad drivers even in situations that have happened before.
I fully expect AI drivers to be safer than human drivers.
Don't you know the rules of AI claims? You always add "in 50 years" to every statement.
The biggest problem is accountability: who pays when someone dies. Once that is worked out, it'll have a shot.
(the math is based on # of US miles driven in 2017 divided by the number of car-caused pedestrian fatalities in the same year)
So cherrypicking the smallest number seems very disingenuous to me.
So I'm going to kill a pedestrian every 100 years? Assuming I drive normally for ~50 years, 500k miles, I have a 50% chance to kill a pedestrian?
I can understand a person being distracted, reacting slowly, not seeing me, etc. I can also mitigate this risk. Crossing the street I can make eye contact with a person and be really confident that they aren’t going to run me over.
Walking in front of a robot? I have no internal model for the kind of mistakes they make. It seems equally likely in any circumstance that they’ll make the mistake of running me down, and there is nothing i can do to avoid it.
Examples:
Elevators where the doors take extremely long to close on their own.
Elevators where the doors close too soon after opening.
Elevators where the limb sensors are not very responsive.
Cars that take a couple of tries to start in cold weather.
Automatic doors that are a little bit slow to open.
Etc.
You would also have to be rather clever in order to get an automatic door to injure you.
A car is also a rather easily understood dynamic system, but that isn’t an issue either. We are all quite frequently in the position of being at between a few seconds and one heartbeat away from a car killing us... walking down a sidewalk, crossing the street, driving on the highway...
We understand pretty well the dynamics of a human driver. Even the drivers that make terrible mistakes we understand something of hope and why.
A robot driver though... the terrible mistakes it makes are mysterious and terrifying. They make the kinds of mistakes a human never would (and few mistakes a human would make).
Maybe a single 'driver' agent in a free-moving ground vehicle in close proximity to vulnerable actors and objects is not the right model for scalable, efficient, safe personal transport?
737 Max fiasco notwithstanding - it's worth mentioning that MCAS had nothing to do with flying the plane, only making it feel more like the 737NG to its human pilots
Not entirely true, the original issue is that the engines are bigger and the center of gravity is moved forward ( because the 737's are too low), thus the planes tend to stall. MCAS is there to correct the stall so that they feel more like 737NGs, but the issue is forcing bigger engines on an obsolete design.
My understanding is none, or nearly none. VNAV follows GPS waypoints with well described, manually designed behaviors for things like climb rate, bank angle, etc.
Autoland isn't machine learning either, and has such a large list of requirements to be allowed that it's basically like designing a self driving computer for a train.
On the other hand, software can make mistakes at scale whereas each human makes mistakes differently.
It’s not so cut and dry.
The same kind of trade off happens with other modes of transport with very rigid constraints on movement, things like trains. A train can keep going, stop, or maybe with enough time reverse if there's tons of time and a strong need.
We don't stand around worrying saying "BUT WHAT IF SOMETHING'S ON THE TRACKS?!?", because the answer is "well then, the train will hit it. That's the tradeoff for being able to move freight so efficiently."
People screw up every day driving and the lives lost is very high but going by how my Tesla drives I am going to say impede traffic by slowing down. My car does slow down, safely, when it gets confused or contradictory feedback, and I am curious what the in beta FSD software will do. Their new technique looks vastly improved.
Traffic aware cruise control which many cars have along with limited lane keep assist can go a long way to making the drive safer but many don't use TACC except on highways
Look at it this way, its coming. However it is all one sided because again I emphasize, we need better and more consistent signage and road marking.
US wise, the HOV and Express lanes are probably the most perfect use case for self driving cars. Get into the lane and it should be hands off until exit.
I think most people ask this kind of question because they assume the entire system is some kind of big if-else-if-else statement. The question about swerving and hitting the kid or the grandma follows the same logic.
What we have to realize is that a neural net can and will react to things it hasn't specifically been told about using heuristics and "similar" stuff, just like human drivers. (see video of Tesla FSD avoiding a deer recently [1])
This is exactly like a new, or student driver. They have not yet encountered every possible situation, but they're able to apply reason and logic to new things and the more they drive, the better they get. So although they've never seen a deer jump out, they know it's good to avoid things when possible BUT NOT to swerve into oncoming traffic if there is traffic. So even a new-ish driver who has never seen a deer on the road will do a decent job of slamming on the brakes and swerving if save to do so. Same goes if a tire bounces towards you on the freeway, etc. etc.
Tesla are working towards billions and billions of miles of this kind of "learning driving", where the system keeps getting better and better.
And even after those billions of miles there will be situations it has never seen before, but the required response will be extraordinarily similar to things it has seen before. Chances are it will do a better job than you or I, because it's reaction time is close enough to 0 not to matter, and emotions won't cloud it's judgment if something really extraordinary happens (plane lands on highway, flood washes away road, etc)
While I agree with your overall point, this is not true. AIs often fail in very inhuman ways. Their "thought process" and learning capabilities resemble ours only superficially.
That said, humans also make a ton of lethal mistakes on the road and I do think we're getting close to a point where it might even out on balance. But people are more forgiving of relatable human failure modes than bizarre machine ones.
See Karpathy's talk here: https://medium.com/self-driving-cars/annotated-karpathys-aut...
Obviously there is still a ton of work to go from easy-to-drive areas to global but it seems like that is a huge notable step.
And what the past sees as hard often becomes less hard (I'm not going to say easy, because technology is never easy) in the future thanks to the accumulation of knowledge and increased speed of processing data.
> And what the past sees as hard often becomes less hard (I'm not going to say easy, because technology is never easy) in the future thanks to the accumulation of knowledge and increased speed of processing data.
It doesn't matter how fast you process data if you can't physically alter the scenario. No amount of data can make the carnot cycle more efficient or reduce entropy.
I'm sure the Romans thought Europe would never enter the dark ages too.
Particle physics has been at a standstill for decades. Fusion power is still a pipe dream. Global warming continues to go on without a technological answer in sight.
False AI promises are not evidence of anything. Nothing AI is doing now is genuinely artificial intelligence. Biotech? We still can't cure cancer.
We are getting more and more evolutions and less and less breakthroughs. That, to me, is slowing down. That doesn't mean things won't get better - just not as quickly, or as thoroughly.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expe...
Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-20...
> Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again.
Which, again, isn't scientific progress. If it's a sociological problem it's not really a scientific breakthrough - it could have been solved decades ago if the will was there.
In fact I'd say we can gain MORE from sociological improvements, not pie in the sky science.
* - Yes, Nuclear is not dead, but is not being used anywhere close to the potential it has i.e. effectively dead.
Otoh, we're pretty bad at 10 year ones too - the original self driving hype being a prime example. Lots of otherwise intelligent people fell into magical thinking there.