>It has also become a place where all of Waymo’s extensive testing has produced just three data points against this view.
This is where you are bypassing the point about how much faith we can put in the data, because we don't have the full results of their extensive testing. We only have the results they are willing to share.
As an analogy, I have a relative who loves to talk about all the times he's won money gambling on the craps table. I almost never hear any information about his losses, unless they are couched to say how much more money he's won later. So would you say I can conclude he's an expert gambler who should quit his job to play craps full time, or do you think there might be some human bias in reporting going on that I should be skeptical about?
So you want to bring up your "three data points" claim again? OK. Those three data points are the three incidents listed in the top post of this thread [1]. About them, you wrote "regardless if you think the decision should be based on statistics alone, my further point is that an n=3 sample size is not adequate to make strong claims." [2] I don't just "bypass" this argument, I dismiss it as an absurd characterization of all the testing Waymo has been performing. As I pointed out at the time, if none of these incidents had occurred during these tests, then, by your logic, we would have no information at all about the safety of the cars! This position, applied consistently, amounts to a complete rejection of statistical methods, and I "bypass" that.
At least the idea that Waymo is hiding data that would reveal the vehicles as being too dangerous to be on public roads is not quite that wrongheaded, but it implies that Waymo is doing this on a massive scale that cannot possibly succeed in the long run. It is not clear, for example, how it could hide information about similar or worse incidents from the insurance companies, and a story about your gambling relative is not changing my mind.
>At least the idea that Waymo is hiding data that would reveal the vehicles as being too dangerous
This is your dichotomous thinking again. I am not making a point about it being "safe" or "unsafe" as a dichotomous choice. I'm saying we don't have good data to make a claim one way or another. That's also different from saying, "we have no information at all." When you combine that with the fact that we have other evidence that RL models can result in unpredictable behavior, it should give us pause.
Insufficient data + priors about unpredictable behavior = uncertainty of performance
The through-line of my entire point is that uncertainty erodes trust, and trust is necessary for wide adoption in the public sphere. It isn't a hard concept if you can lay your bias and dichotomous thinking aside to consider it. Waymo seems to agree; although the PR headline is about 7MM miles traveled, the report says:
>"the required ADS VMT to establish statistical significance ranges from tens to hundreds of millions of
miles, and the fatal outcome requires hundreds of millions to billions of miles of driving are needed."
So unless you have better data to show, you've demonstrated nothing to make me change my mind.
You don't get a thread of 173 posts (44 by you) over 6 days and counting (4 in the last day) over the anodyne position you are now professing. That time has been spent dealing with all the bogus stuff that you are now tacitly disavowing, such as the bizarre three data points claim that you brought up again as recently as your previous post.
> ...change my mind.
You have been tacitly changing your mind throughout, though, of course, you will not admit it.
Like so many of your previous posts, this doesn't address any of the actual points made, but just tries to shoehorn your own digression. If you can point to where I changed my mind, I'll be happy to try and explain how it relates to those original points or admit if it does not. Note that "unexpected behavior" and "uncertainty" are literally in the first post I made, as is the part about what it takes for society to adopt the tech.
It certainly comes across like either you're too hung up on a position to read critically or you got fooled by a PR piece without knowing how to properly interpret it. I guess that's a win for the SV hype machine.
Ah - so, if you have not changed your mind on anything, then, regrettably, you left a number of things out of your "I'm saying" list, such as the business about there only being three relevant data points from Waymo's testing [1].
On the one hand, I can understand that it is difficult to keep track of everything you have said throughout your twists and turns, but on the other, it seems particularly important one to keep this one in mind as, if verified, it would be far more damning of Waymo than everything else you have said, combined!
This is where you are bypassing the point about how much faith we can put in the data, because we don't have the full results of their extensive testing. We only have the results they are willing to share.
As an analogy, I have a relative who loves to talk about all the times he's won money gambling on the craps table. I almost never hear any information about his losses, unless they are couched to say how much more money he's won later. So would you say I can conclude he's an expert gambler who should quit his job to play craps full time, or do you think there might be some human bias in reporting going on that I should be skeptical about?