7 ms·

the majority of the miles I drive are highway so for me "3 words" covers a large percentage of my usage. This is likely true of most people as well.

by jjn2009 7y ago

ghaff 7y ago
Except nothing existing today is fully autonomous (i.e. I can kick back and read a book) even on just highways.
Piskvorrr 7y ago
That's a great analogy! For English (and autonomy levels), this works for orders of magnitude: Two and two and two and two and two, no good; ten times ten, good in easy things; with a thousand words, you can get things done and sound normal; a vocabulary of ten thousand words provides an adequate command of the language to discuss complex concepts; 10^5 or any higher exponent comprises capability exceeding that of a majority of users. I do agree that we're still at level 2: it's relatively amazing (i.e. see what can be done with the limited toolset available), but not really that great: outside of predictable, menial tasks, the rough edges become acutely limiting.
close04 7y ago
Indeed. The only way to call today's cars "self driving" is to narrow down the conditions of driving to the point where it's just as ridiculous as my "3 words" example, and then realize they're still not narrow enough. > the majority of the miles The "miles" metric that's not very relevant, not all miles are created equal. Driving in a straight line with almost zero challenges is nothing like driving as a whole. Would a power supply that's only able to take idle loads (majority of the time) be considered any good? How about a phone that can only make calls only most of the day? Even a "dumb" car can be considered self driving by this definition. All you need is cruise control or if you want to get fancy, ACC and LKA. This would allow you to drive for hours on end or hundreds of Km on a highway with little (fractions of a second at a time, maybe a total of 1Km with hands on wheel) or no human intervention.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > Would a power supply that's only able to take idle loads (majority of the time) be considered any good? How about a phone that can only make calls only most of the day? When the models without those downsides require constant strong attention and nearly unbroken eyesight? Yes, sell me those models now. I'll switch between manual mode and somewhat-limited-feature mode when necessary.
  - close04 7y ago
    You may have missed the point and there’s not much room to dumb it down. If you have to narrow the definition of driving so much then it’s not actually driving. Many cars spend a lot of time idling, especially in crowded cities. Would you call them self driving because they can perform unattended this very, very narrow task (but long) from the whole activity of driving? As for the “yes sign me up” I call bluff. There are plenty of situations in daily life where you need to have constant supervision. You wouldn’t let your child operate in them under the assumption that “there’s a good chance they won’t die”. You will take the constant supervision in place of the device that only works for 1% of the features you need and even then it might kill. Take an iron that can iron by itself but only small, cotton clothes, and once in a while it burns down the house. Do you leave it unattended? Do you even call it self ironing?
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      > If you have to narrow the definition of driving so much then it’s not actually driving. I don't care what you call it. I just want to be able to ignore the road until the car beeps at me. (with at least 10 seconds of warning) > Many cars spend a lot of time idling But a car can't be idling while I use it. A computer can have idle power levels while I browse the web, and a phone that works in a certain range of hours is still very useful. If you wanted to make an analogy for "useless", that didn't come across. > You wouldn’t let your child operate in them under the assumption that “there’s a good chance they won’t die”. > once in a while it burns down the house Who said anything about 'a good chance'? You said those products worked for specific uses. You didn't say they would also fail at random, even inside those limits. This is a different scenario now. If the car can handle "a straight line with almost zero challenges", sign me up for that easy highway driving. It's only when you remove the word 'almost' that it becomes a cruise control missile / deathtrap.

the majority of the miles I drive are highway so for me "3 words" covers a large percentage of my usage. This is likely true of most people as well.

ghaff 7y ago

Except nothing existing today is fully autonomous (i.e. I can kick back and read a book) even on just highways.

Piskvorrr 7y ago

That's a great analogy! For English (and autonomy levels), this works for orders of magnitude: Two and two and two and two and two, no good; ten times ten, good in easy things; with a thousand words, you can get things done and sound normal; a vocabulary of ten thousand words provides an adequate command of the language to discuss complex concepts; 10^5 or any higher exponent comprises capability exceeding that of a majority of users. I do agree that we're still at level 2: it's relatively amazing (i.e. see what can be done with the limited toolset available), but not really that great: outside of predictable, menial tasks, the rough edges become acutely limiting.

close04 7y ago

Indeed. The only way to call today's cars "self driving" is to narrow down the conditions of driving to the point where it's just as ridiculous as my "3 words" example, and then realize they're still not narrow enough. > the majority of the miles The "miles" metric that's not very relevant, not all miles are created equal. Driving in a straight line with almost zero challenges is nothing like driving as a whole. Would a power supply that's only able to take idle loads (majority of the time) be considered any good? How about a phone that can only make calls only most of the day? Even a "dumb" car can be considered self driving by this definition. All you need is cruise control or if you want to get fancy, ACC and LKA. This would allow you to drive for hours on end or hundreds of Km on a highway with little (fractions of a second at a time, maybe a total of 1Km with hands on wheel) or no human intervention.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> Would a power supply that's only able to take idle loads (majority of the time) be considered any good? How about a phone that can only make calls only most of the day? When the models without those downsides require constant strong attention and nearly unbroken eyesight? Yes, sell me those models now. I'll switch between manual mode and somewhat-limited-feature mode when necessary.
- close04 7y ago
  You may have missed the point and there’s not much room to dumb it down. If you have to narrow the definition of driving so much then it’s not actually driving. Many cars spend a lot of time idling, especially in crowded cities. Would you call them self driving because they can perform unattended this very, very narrow task (but long) from the whole activity of driving? As for the “yes sign me up” I call bluff. There are plenty of situations in daily life where you need to have constant supervision. You wouldn’t let your child operate in them under the assumption that “there’s a good chance they won’t die”. You will take the constant supervision in place of the device that only works for 1% of the features you need and even then it might kill. Take an iron that can iron by itself but only small, cotton clothes, and once in a while it burns down the house. Do you leave it unattended? Do you even call it self ironing?
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > If you have to narrow the definition of driving so much then it’s not actually driving. I don't care what you call it. I just want to be able to ignore the road until the car beeps at me. (with at least 10 seconds of warning) > Many cars spend a lot of time idling But a car can't be idling while I use it. A computer can have idle power levels while I browse the web, and a phone that works in a certain range of hours is still very useful. If you wanted to make an analogy for "useless", that didn't come across. > You wouldn’t let your child operate in them under the assumption that “there’s a good chance they won’t die”. > once in a while it burns down the house Who said anything about 'a good chance'? You said those products worked for specific uses. You didn't say they would also fail at random, even inside those limits. This is a different scenario now. If the car can handle "a straight line with almost zero challenges", sign me up for that easy highway driving. It's only when you remove the word 'almost' that it becomes a cruise control missile / deathtrap.