News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns... by YeGoblynQueenne on Sunday September 26, 2021 @09:35AM (#28660775)
>> At some point data will win, right? Have you worked out in your head when that will be?

According to a Rand corp. study I quote in another comment, it will take millions or billions of miles and decades or centuries before we can know self-driving cars are safe, simply from observation:

Autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries.

Under even aggressive testing assumptions, existing fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years to drive these miles — an impossible proposition if the aim is to demonstrate their performance prior to releasing them on the roads for consumer use.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html

That's statistics, btw, not fear. Data, like you say, will "win" at some point but that will be far in the future. Until then we have a few thousand systems whose safety we can't measure but are available commercially (and sold under pretense of improving safety).

Note also that before Tesla started selling cars with "autopilot" there was no way to know how safe it would be, in advance. That is not the behaviour of a company that cares at all about safety, other than as a marketing term.

Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns... by ajross on Sunday September 26, 2021 @09:47AM (#28660855)
That Rand paper is sort of a joke. It's positing an idea of "certainty" we don't apply to any other industries anywhere. The same logic would argue that human drivers are not known with certainty to be safe, that industrial accidents are not proven not to happen, that airline autopilots aren't known with certainty to be safe, etc..

The goal isn't certainty. It's "better". It seems like it might be "better" already.

Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns... by YeGoblynQueenne on Sunday September 26, 2021 @10:01AM (#28660957)
The Rand study is not about "certainty", but about determining the safety of self-driving cars and the number of miles needed to do it. Are you confusing the colloquial meaning of "certainty" (as in "I'm sure about it") with the meaning of "certainty", and particulary uncertainty in probabilities and statistics?

Is there some other published work that you prefer over the Rand study?

Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns... by ajross on Sunday September 26, 2021 @10:27AM (#28661143)
"Certainty" appears in the abstract! But yes, the article is talking about the work required to derive a 95%-confident result of a specific improvement. But that's backwards, and not how one does statistics. You measure an effect, and then compute its confidence.

And it's spun anyway, since most of those "trillions of miles!" numbers reflect things like proving 95% confidence of 100%+ improvements in safety. When all we really want to know to release this to the public is 95% confidence of 0% improvement (i.e. "is it not worse?").

Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns... by YeGoblynQueenne on Sunday September 26, 2021 @10:37AM (#28661202)
>> But that's backwards, and not how one does statistics.

Are you saying one cannot use statistics to make predictions about future events?

Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns... by ajross on Sunday September 26, 2021 @11:05AM (#28661427)
I'm saying that to make good decisions, you need to make predictions about the right future events. And Rand is pontificating about the wrong ones.
Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns... by YeGoblynQueenne on Sunday September 26, 2021 @03:26PM (#28663807)
Where is it that they are "pontificating"? They're calculating how long and how far self-driving cars need to drive before we can accept they're safe.