|
Deteriorata posted:It is not at all analogous to self-driving cars, where the developers' first priority is to start making money quickly and killing people is part of their R&D. I thought it was pretty clear that I was responding to this: Platystemon posted:I started a thought with “Uber’s self driving car is more like Nazi ‘science’ than it is to…” What I'm talking about is, I think, a good example of "where innocent people had to be sacrificed for the greater good." I agree that self-driving cars are not a case where sacrificing innocent people for the greater good is what is happening.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:Texas. ....Arizona? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Super Soaker Party! posted:....Arizona? Ugh, for some reason I thought the Uber death was in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
haveblue posted:For comparison, this is how to write perfect software when lives are on the line. It results in code that's pretty much entirely bug-free (not to mention on schedule and on budget) but it's utterly unlike commercial software development and no one trying to make a profit could work like that. Even then, people can manage to gently caress up safety-critical software like that
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I thought it was pretty clear that I was responding to this: I mean, sure, it is possible for there to be considered societal risks in exchange for benefits. Things like vaccine trials are a good example of this. The point though is that this has nothing to do with Uber's negligence killing a woman. Even in the case of something like the oral Polio vaccine shedding virus to people around the vaccinated party, those non-consenting bystanders still largely received immunity themselves. The rate of complications from a given vaccine is known by the time it is in large-scale trials or deployment. The risks both to the individuals directly receiving the vaccine and those around them are both weighed against the real, ongoing disease the vaccine protects against. The judgement are made with a formal process that changes as our knowledge develops. The decisions are also public and changeable. This is nothing at all like Uber running live experiments down the road purely for training purposes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:If it were anything close to rational we'd all be taking the bus and other public transit means because it's already demonstrably safer than cars with far lower infrastructure costs once you consider urban sprawl, and the tech is available already. People are going to do what they want; you can't force them to get on a bus, at least not with the current political system. It seems like it's practical to allow self-driving vehicles once they demonstrably save lives relative to human drivers, so if we have the opportunity to replace something bad with something significantly less bad, why not? Waiting for perfection is just going to keep costing lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Waiting for perfection is just going to keep costing lives. false dichotomy
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:People are going to do what they want; you can't force them to get on a bus, at least not with the current political system. It seems like it's practical to allow self-driving vehicles once they demonstrably save lives relative to human drivers, so if we have the opportunity to replace something bad with something significantly less bad, why not? Waiting for perfection is just going to keep costing lives. So you oppose these self-driving cars being on the road then, since they currently have a demonstrated fatality rate significantly in excess of human drivers (including drunk drivers). Particularly since Uber has way less miles driven and is at a fatality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Like, people arguing in favor of imperfect self-driving cars always argue "but if they're safer than people, there's still a benefit". Self-driving cars are not safer than human drivers. In terms of total miles driven per fatality, they are enormously less safe. "If" they were better is a hypothetical. They aren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:People are going to do what they want; you can't force them to get on a bus, at least not with the current political system. It seems like it's practical to allow self-driving vehicles once they demonstrably save lives relative to human drivers, so if we have the opportunity to replace something bad with something significantly less bad, why not? Waiting for perfection is just going to keep costing lives. I dunno, sounds kinda accelerationist hehe get it cause we're talking about cars
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
It's beautiful. Upside down and backwards 2x. The melted bedliner is a nice touch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:So you oppose these self-driving cars being on the road then, since they currently have a demonstrated fatality rate significantly in excess of human drivers (including drunk drivers). Particularly since Uber has way less miles driven and is at a fatality. Yes, exactly. Like I said before, it's probably going to be 20 years before they reach that point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yes, exactly. Like I said before, it's probably going to be 20 years before they reach that point. Ok. Let me also point out to the Tesla/Uber fanboys that I, also, have no inherent moral objection to self-driving cars. If the systems were actually safer and properly validated and tested I would support them. That said I do not think this current generation of technology, testing, and regulation will get us anywhere near acceptable and I have doubts as to the "solvability" of general-purpose self driving at all, ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AndreaABC11/status/1193901329594408961
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Every morning for the last month or two I've seen this thing from my train to work... What exactly is being built? Will it be safe? Because that floor doesn't look remotely level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Multi level car park? The crooked floors could be ramps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
My guess would be car park and the floors are sloped like they are for water drainage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
It's car park, and the ramps on each side drop 1/2 a level. You just don't see the ramps on the other side. If you only had a ramp on one side dropping 1 full level, it'd be too steep to park on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Another example of "definitely bent in the straight places"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Someone had to be helicoptered out of my facility today after a press with two hand pneumatic control actuated uncommanded and ate a hand
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Someone had to be helicoptered out of my facility today after a press with two hand pneumatic control actuated uncommanded and ate a hand Comrade Press made itself accessible for differently‐able workers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Comrade Press made itself accessible for differently‐able workers. Comrade Press made itself make some differently-abled workers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
I hear you've got a little weather in the states right now... https://twitter.com/theakchi/status/1193908271444303877?s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Someone had to be helicoptered out of my facility today after a press with two hand pneumatic control actuated uncommanded and ate a hand What's the over under on 'management ordered preventative maintenance suspended, resulting in worker injury' vs. 'Worker hosed with the safety system in such a way that it ate him for his hubris'? Also now I'm picturing a 50 ton high speed press with googly eyes and angry eyebrow made of pieces of dust broom. With a little speech bubble made of whiteboard, saying "Yummy handses" Also RE: Self Driving Chat. Uber are loving criminally negligent clowns, Tesla are frauds, and Waymo is cautiously optimistic of it being 'good enough' in another 3-5 years. GM, Toyota and Ford are all on the 'Self Drive Legal 2030' long term development. Methylethylaldehyde fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Nov 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
As an aside, following the end of the Google/Uber lawsuit, Uber had to pay for an independent third party code audit to see if their software still infringed on Google/waymo tech, and the results recently came back that it still did. They've been ripping out code and trying to re-do it in ways that don't infringe, which I would guess is just the worst case scenario for quality/function of their systems. Would probably be a lot safer if they started over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
Hmm yes this looks very safe, indeed.    Not pictured: the scorched outlet that was somehow like this before someone plugged this in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Someone had to be helicoptered out of my facility today after a press with two hand pneumatic control actuated uncommanded and ate a hand Memento posted:I hear you've got a little weather in the states right now... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBLdQ1a4-JI
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Bees on Wheat posted:Hmm yes this looks very safe, indeed. that's not going to hurt you
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:09
|
|
to give you this shitty icon and give Lowtax his cyborg spine parts
|
shame on an IGA posted:Someone had to be helicoptered out of my facility today after a press with two hand pneumatic control actuated uncommanded and ate a hand Condolences to Zaphod Beeblebrox, I hope he makes a full recovery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Bees on Wheat posted:Hmm yes this looks very safe, indeed. That’s the five‐volt side. It’s more‐or‐less harmless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It seems rational that self-driving cars would be allowed once their crash and fatality rates were lower than human drivers, because at that point they'd be saving lives. And given that 97% of crashes are due at least in part to human error, that's a pretty low bar to clear (20 years past when the optimists say we'll be there). This is specious reasoning. Replacing the human driver with a computer doesn't mean that 97% of crashes will be eliminated; it just replaces one source of error with another. Computers may be immune to some types of human error (e.g. inattention) but they are prone to new ones we don't fully understand. For instance, when I'm driving and a pedestrian crosses the street in front of me, I don't lock up for five seconds while I variously see her as a bicycle, a shopping cart, or a plastic bag. That is a new type of mistake that humans don't make. A separate issue that exacerbates the problem is the use of black-box neural nets to do large portions of the driving task. We understand how code works and we can trace its logic and make mathematical proofs about its behavior. We also understand, to some depth, how the human brain works and how it can fail -- for instance we know that humans are prone to certain types of optical illusions, that some people's eyes can't distinguish certain color pairs, etc. But in most cases we literally have no idea what the neural networks are keying on to differentiate a bicycle and a pedestrian, and because they're brand new and unique we don't know what sort of errors to expect. We can't use our knowledge of human fallacies OR software fallacies to accurately predict failure modes. Here is an image of a turtle that has been slightly perturbed so that a computer vision system thinks it is a rifle. No human's brain works that way; trying to understand why this happens is like trying to communicate with an alien.  Furthermore, the idea that computers will be able to replicate human capabilities on a predictable timescale -- that we just need a little more engineering and debugging -- is itself fallacious. We've proven again and again that some tasks turn out to be easier for computers than humans (making thousands of measurements per second) and others the reverse (performing social interactions). Unfortunately, driving in traffic is far more about the latter than the former, despite what your average Stanford techbro tells Sequoia Capital in his pitch meeting. The first version of ELIZA was written in 1964. People at the time were briefly astonished by how good it was at replicating human behavior, and predicted that it would rapidly develop into artificially-intelligent speech-interface computers. Within just a few minutes of playing with ELIZA, though, her limitations became apparent to even a child. It's more than half a century later now, nobody mistakes Siri for a real person, and despite decades of development we aren't really any closer to having a computer that can follow a human conversation than we were back in the 60s. Self-driving automobile technology has followed the exact same trajectory on roughly the same timescale, and Uber's project (and Waymo, and Tesla, and whoever else) is the technical equivalent of Siri. Would you trust Siri with your life? 
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Nov 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
OSHA tales from work: a paint-mixing machine had apparently been lightly and casually shocking people for about four years, according to a co-worker who simply shrugged and called it a "known problem." I had to tell people not to play with it and shock themselves for fun while I made sure management knew in text, so they couldn't squirm around doing something about it. Apparently no one had, at any point, thought that this was something that needed fixing. Of course by the next week they still hadn't actually informed the guy ostensibly in charge of maintaining warehouse safety. Then again it probably wouldn't matter, since this is the guy whose response to safety violations is: "if we did it the right way, it'd take too long" or "I'm sure they're working on it" when informed someone's driving forklifts without a license(they aren't, the guy's still driving those forklifts two years later and still has no license. no matter how much he knows what he's doing, it's the principle of the matter, this time it's a guy who hasn't killed anyone yet, next time it may be someone whose first day at the work involves flattening a half dozen customers and a coworker), so they might have just reasonably decided it didn't really matter. RE: Self-driving cars, I think the only way you'd really make them work is if you entirely separated the automobile and pedestrian/bicycle travel networks, so pedestrians could cross over or under roads and never be at any risk from cars(pedestrian tunnels and bridges, essentially, rather than zebra crossings). If they only had to deal with other self-driving vehicles, all communicating, and perfectly marked travel areas, I believe self-driving cars could be more effective and safe than human drivers(plus then I could just tell my car where to take me and get a nap), but the road network where self-driving cars work perfectly is vastly different from the road network that we currently have(or likely ever will have). PurpleXVI fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Nov 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:RE: Self-driving cars, I think the only way you'd really make them work is if you entirely separated the automobile and pedestrian/bicycle travel networks, so pedestrians could cross over or under roads and never be at any risk from cars(pedestrian tunnels and bridges, essentially, rather than zebra crossings). If they only had to deal with other self-driving vehicles, all communicating, and perfectly marked travel areas, and once they're on these dedicated rights-of-way, where only self-driving cars could go, they could all start linking together with other cars going to the same place and travel in packs for efficiency. since there are some routes that are going to be a lot more popular than others, you could make extra large self-driving cars for many people at once that serve those routes exclusively. and then on these really high-traffic routes you could make the roads out of steel instead of asphalt for reduced maintenance. or at least two thin tracks under where the wheels are, since the car will be able to follow it perfectly. and then why not make the wheels out of steel too for even better wear resistance? and
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
waaaaaiiiiiiit just a second, what exactly are you tryin’ to do here
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
This was low voltage, right? Or speaker wires?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Someone had to be helicoptered out of my facility today after a press with two hand pneumatic control actuated uncommanded and ate a hand When I was talking with a new customer, one of the guys told a story at another facility years ago, they pulled a decommissioned press out of storage to get more production. It didn't have modern safety standards and a worker lost a finger or thumb. They were sitting themselves thinking they'd get shut down, but the lady came back to work, apologized, and begged for her job back. It was told to me as an amusing anecdote. I was horrified and wish I knew more details to report it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Canuckistan posted:This was low voltage, right? Or speaker wires? What does your heart tell you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 01:33
|
|
