Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/23/2024, 3:08:29 PM
X
In reply to:
Timothy B. Lee
@binarybits
·
627d
@GaryMarcus If you think they did their human benchmark wrong I'd be interested in reading about that.
Timothy B. Lee
@binarybits
·
627d
@GaryMarcus And the study does try to adjust for the fact that driverless Waymo vehicles don't operate on freeways. I forget the details now but I remember finding their methodology reasonable at the time the study was published.
Timothy B. Lee
@binarybits
·
627d
@GaryMarcus The comparison Waymo did was Waymo vehicles to human-driven vehicles in the same cities. They weren't comparing Waymo in SF to national statistics.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
627d
@binarybits there are many provisos to that study. fundamentally, it’s apples (driving in a small number of cities, probably geofenced, only relatively little good weather, very little highway driving, etc) and oranges (open-ended driving, essentially everywhere)
Timothy B. Lee
@binarybits
·
627d
@GaryMarcus https://www.understandingai.org/…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
627d
AV experts, do you agree that Tesla is far ahead in self-driving?

Personally, I could see an argument for Waymo, e.g., since they do more testing of cars without human drivers in the car; AFAIK Tesla has not done this at scale.

Also Jensen asserts that self-driving *is* safer,…

The statement in question is part of a broader conversation about the safety and efficacy of autonomous vehicles, specifically Waymo's driverless cars compared to human-driven vehicles. This conversation involves public issues related to technology, safety, and public policy, thus constituting public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It is a neutral response indicating a willingness to engage further. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement is neutral and does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does indicate a willingness to engage in further discussion, which can be seen as a positive step towards understanding.
  4. 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 indicates a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue by expressing an intention to look at the details and address concerns separately. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement does not address any mistakes directly, so this principle is not applicable.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement does not explicitly use influence for the betterment of society, but it does contribute to a public discussion on a significant societal issue.
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly and with integrity by engaging in a civil and constructive manner. [+1]