Re:Watch Zoox’s autonomous car drive around San Francisco fo...
by chrisseaton on Saturday April 18, 2020 @07:27PM
(#22912007)
> even though it's a 10x improvement over a human operator it still wouldn't be allowed on the market
Hmm I don't agree I think people would go for that.
Re:Watch Zoox’s autonomous car drive around San Francisco fo...
by gambiting on Saturday April 18, 2020 @07:32PM
(#22912035)
Then look up Therac-25, because that's roughly what happened
Re:Watch Zoox’s autonomous car drive around San Francisco fo...
by chrisseaton on Saturday April 18, 2020 @07:35PM
(#22912057)
> Therac-25
That wasn't AI - it was a concurrency error, wasn't it?
You shouldn't discard technology because sometimes it's wrong. It can be better overall.
Re:Watch Zoox’s autonomous car drive around San Francisco fo...
by gambiting on Saturday April 18, 2020 @07:48PM
(#22912120)
Why would it matter if it was AI or not? 99.9% of the public won't care if an "AI" killed their mum in a car accident or if it was a badly written for loop somewhere. Literally irrelevant. If a computer makes an error people will want blood(as in - they will sue the company to absolute death, just because a human would make the same mistake or worse is irrelevant).
Re:Watch Zoox’s autonomous car drive around San Francisco fo...
by chrisseaton on Saturday April 18, 2020 @08:08PM
(#22912225)
> Why would it matter if it was AI or not?
I think people's idea of what a computer should be doing has changed a lot since then, due to the common knowledge of AI applications.
Perhaps we're close to the situation where when a person makes a mistake they're asked 'why weren't you using the computer?' I've seen this happen myself.
Re:Watch Zoox’s autonomous car drive around San Francisco fo...
by wutbrodo on Sunday April 19, 2020 @02:37AM
(#22914032)
Your original comment asserted that a machine _shouldn't_ be allowed on the market until its performance is significantly superhuman, but your responses in this thread just repeat the assertion. What's the actual rationale for claiming that we should leave a net benefit on the table (eg if human-level driving performance improves transit efficiency)?
As another example, imagine if you had a radiotherapy machine, when operated manually it randomly kills 1/10000 patients, but when operated by AI it randomly kills 1/100000 patients. Yet I'm 100% certain even though it's a 10x improvement over a human operator it still wouldn't be allowed on the market.