(2024-06-19, 01:59 AM)Laird Wrote: Oh dear. Unless I'm misinterpreting that paper, the news article misreported its results. The paper started with a set of self-driving accidents, and a set of human-driving accidents, and then compared the two to find, essentially, the ratios of different types of accident between the two sets. All it can tell us in terms of likelihood, then, is, given any random self-driving accident, and any random human-driving accident, how much likelier (or less likely) the self-driving accident is to have certain characteristics than the human-driving accident. It can't tell us anything about the absolute likelihood (i.e., per million driving miles) of self-driving versus human-driving accidents, or even the absolute likelihood of the occurrence of an accident having certain characteristics for self-driving versus human-driving accidents, as the article mistakenly seems to imply it does.
Is that your take too?
Yeah, this is where I also felt the paper was flawed, though you looked deeper into it than I did admittedly.
But of course any report that gives some credit to driverless cars will be spread around, too much money on a questionable idea to back out now...
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(This post was last modified: 2024-06-19, 02:59 AM by Sciborg_S_Patel. Edited 1 time in total.)
- Bertrand Russell