5 ms·
Oh yeah, I’m not saying it should be in the training data - driving into the water would be a bad data collection strategy. My point was more that a self-drivi
by alex43578 13d ago
Oh yeah, I’m not saying it should be in the training data - driving into the water would be a bad data collection strategy.
My point was more that a self-driving car going into water isn’t some unreasonably bad action, as people do it all the time.
If we set the bar for self-driving to be as safe as a human driver, or even 2x as safe, this behavior would still happen.
- pinkmuffinere 13d agoAhhhh, that makes sense, that is an interesting point — I think you’re saying it’s just not high risk enough for them to make sure it’s got coverage
- alex43578 10d agoWithout a good way of getting it into the dataset via simulation, or a more speculative approach (world models?), edge cases and unusual circumstances could cause failures. I think my broader point is people don't do so well in unusual circumstances either: blizzards, heavy rain, dust storms, etc. They'll hydroplane, drive into stopped traffic, etc. We need to decide if we'll hold self-driving cars to some unreasonable standard of perfection or accept them once they are X safer than a human benchmark, even if they still have Y rate of failure per million miles.
- cindyllm 10d ago[dead]