Re:Tesla driver using Autopilot kills motorcyclist, promptin...
by sonofhans on Wednesday July 27, 2022 @12:19PM
(#32252423)
It seems like you're debating the meaning of "obvious" -- "What is obvious? And to whom?" My meaning was, "obvious to a skilled, attentive, unimpaired human."
> Shouldn't the goal be that the computer considers more obstacles obvious than the human?
That would be excellent, as long as it's correct :)
Re:Tesla driver using Autopilot kills motorcyclist, promptin...
by hcurtiss on Wednesday July 27, 2022 @01:59PM
(#32254022)
In my view, the question should be whether it's more or less safe than humans driving. If use of automated driving results in less death than humans driving, considered at the broadest possible scale, then that strikes me as an excellent outcome. Instead, each and every death under autopilot results in all the hens clucking as though it's proof the technology has failed. That's ridiculous.
But isn't this a weird criterion? An obvious obstacle for a human might not be obvious to the computer -- but importantly, it could be the other way around too: the computer detects obstacles that are obvious to it, but a human would miss.
Shouldn't the goal be that the computer considers more obstacles obvious than the human?
I get the emotional argument that it's hard to convince a person off the street of this, but isn't HN a place for more nuanced debate?