Gary Marcus

Rank 35 of 47
|
Score -49
4/25/2024, 3:38:02 PM
X
In reply to:
joe atikian
@JoeAtikian
·
322d
@andyeven @GaryMarcus I say errors fewer than human drivers in all categories (death, injury, collision, misdirection, entrapment, etc), plus no new kinds of errors such as repeated collision with roadside repsonders like police and fire crews. And don't replace gas fires with electrical fires, etc.
Andy Even
@andyeven
·
322d
@GaryMarcus I’m inclined to think you’re probably right, but just out of curiosity, what’s your satisfaction condition, safety on par with human driver, or far greater?

Do we have numbers indicating BlueCruise death per driving hour is greater than human?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
322d
No consumer car should be driven “hands-free” in 2024. The technology simply isn’t good enough yet.
Helen Greiner 🤖
@helengreiner
·
324d
Ford’s Hands-Free BlueCruise Was Active in Fatal Crash, Officials Say
https://www.thedrive.com/news/fo…

The statement '@JoeAtikian @andyeven dude, you need numerators and denominators and stuff like that.' is part of a broader conversation on Twitter regarding the safety and efficacy of autonomous driving technology, specifically referencing Ford's Hands-Free BlueCruise system. The conversation involves multiple users discussing the standards and expectations for autonomous vehicle safety, prompted by a news report of a fatal crash involving such technology. The statement itself, while informal and somewhat dismissive, is a critique of the lack of specific data or metrics in the preceding user's argument about autonomous vehicle safety.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is somewhat dismissive but does not cause harm.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks a tone of empathy or compassion, focusing instead on a blunt critique of argumentative rigor. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by pointing out the need for precise data in discussions about safety but does so in a casual manner that might not foster productive dialogue.