Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: turchin 18 July 2016 09:03:34PM 1 point [-]

But isn't the fatal accident per mile is better predictive measure?

Comment author: knb 19 July 2016 12:29:56AM 1 point [-]

I don't think so; different types of car are bought by different people and driven differently. E.g. a person who buys a Lamborghini or Ferrari probably likes to drive fast and show off; a person who buys a Volvo probably drives a lot more carefully.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 10 July 2016 08:11:25PM 0 points [-]

Here (copy) is a diagram.

Tesla's algorithm is supposed to be autonomous for freeways, not for highways with intersections, like this. The algorithm doing what it was supposed to do would not have prevented a crash. But the algorithm was supposed to eventually apply the brakes. Its failure to do so was a real failure of the algorithm. The driver also erred in failing to brake, probably because he was inappropriately relying on the algorithm. Maybe this was a difficult situation and he could not be expected to prevent a crash, but his failure to brake at all is a bad sign.

It was obvious when Telsa first released this that people were using it inappropriately. I think that they have released updates to encourage better use, but I don't know how successful they were.

Comment author: knb 10 July 2016 09:05:55PM 1 point [-]

The driver also erred in failing to brake, probably because he was inappropriately relying on the algorithm.

Yep, according to the truck driver, the Model S driver was watching Harry Potter, and it was still playing even after the car came to a stop. He probably had his eyes completely off the road.

Comment author: morganism 07 July 2016 09:00:39PM *  2 points [-]

the Tesla auto-driver accident was truly an accident. I didn't realize it was a semi crossing the divider and two lanes to hit him.

https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/misfortune

Comment author: knb 09 July 2016 03:13:01PM 0 points [-]

The truck pulled in front of the Model S. The Model S had enough time to break and stop but didn't recognize the truck against the brightly lit sky.

Comment author: knb 26 June 2016 03:22:03AM 0 points [-]

What do you think are good ideas for moonshot projects that have not yet been adequately researched or funded?

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 23 June 2016 07:51:11PM *  -1 points [-]

File under "we're not as rich as we think we are", this Wiki page shows that economic-basket-case Greece has higher median net worth than the US. Australia is astoundingly rich, +$60k higher than the US average (which includes the megawealthy) and $175k higher than the US median. Even econo-sluggard Italy has $100k higher median than the US.

Comment author: knb 24 June 2016 11:49:12PM *  0 points [-]

I think apples-to-apples comparison is tricky here. Things like the age structure of the population can matter a lot here. A country with an average age of 50 should have a higher level of net worth than one with an average age of 30.

In any case I'm not sure net worth is the valid way to think about "how rich we are" compared to income or consumption or quality of life or whatever.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 21 June 2016 06:45:35AM 0 points [-]

Don't you think it would, say, wreck most ecosystems on the planet?

Comment author: knb 21 June 2016 01:04:58PM 1 point [-]

It would only happen in areas of dense human habitation, which already wrecks the ecosystem. No net harm.

In response to comment by knb on Crazy Ideas Thread
Comment author: ChristianKl 20 June 2016 10:38:31AM *  0 points [-]

Quite a while anybody could send information to Facebook users because Facebook implemented the open standard of Email. I think that feature was mostly used by spammers.

I don't want everybody to send me messages in an unfiltered way.

As far as breaking up Facebook, I don't see a reason why they should have Instagram and WhatsApp but the core Facebook service can't be easily broken up.

Comment author: knb 21 June 2016 01:01:57AM -1 points [-]

Quite a while anybody could send information to Facebook users because Facebook implemented the open standard of Email.

Sure, I could send emails to your facebook account, but if I wanted to see any of your social media content, I would have to start a Facebook account and access it via Facebook's walled garden. If I want to use Google+ and you use Facebook....

It's as though you had to use a Verizon phone to have a conversation with other Verizon users, and you couldn't use your Verizon phone to contact people who use AT&T. The outcome is inevitably a monopoly due to Metcalf's law.

I don't want everybody to send me messages in an unfiltered way.

Your social network client could still have filters, but the filter would be something you control, and it wouldn't be as arbitrary as "you may only friend-request other facebook users, and only other facebook users may friend-request you."

As far as breaking up Facebook, I don't see a reason why they should have Instagram and WhatsApp but the core Facebook service can't be easily broken up.

Start with an open standard for friend requests; i.e. Google+ must accept friend requests from Facebook and vice versa. Any new startup would be able to create their own social networking client, capable of sending, accepting, and displaying friend requests, media shares, private messages, wall posts, etc. This would create a much better, more competitive system with vastly more consumer surplus.

In response to Crazy Ideas Thread
Comment author: James_Miller 18 June 2016 12:34:45AM 10 points [-]

Someone should create a free speech Twitter that doesn't censor anything protected by the U.S. 1st amendment.

Comment author: knb 20 June 2016 08:42:45AM 3 points [-]

I think there is a strong case for breaking up Facebook and Twitter as telecom monopolies. They would be forced to adopt open standards, so anyone could send information to their users, and other companies would be able to create their own clients to send info to facebook/twitter users and vice versa.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 04 June 2016 04:36:45PM 0 points [-]

It's a moral imperative that we must create this.

John Carmack, speaking of the Holodeck/Virtual World concept.

Quoted by David Kushner in Masters of Doom, see also here.

Comment author: knb 07 June 2016 12:04:59PM 1 point [-]

Did he give an explanation of why he thinks that would be a "moral imperative?"

Comment author: Ixiel 26 May 2016 10:05:30PM -1 points [-]

Ok, I have to hold my breath as I ask this, and I'm really not trying to poke any bears, but I trust this community's ability to answer objectively more than other places I can ask, including more than my weak weak Google fu, given all the noise:

Is Sanders actually more than let's say 25% likely to get the nod?

I had written him off early, but I don't get to vote in that primary so I only just started paying attention. I'm probably voting Libertarian anyway, but Trump scares me almost as much as Clinton, so I'd sleep a little better during the meanwhile if it turns out I was wrong.

Thanks in advance. If this violates the Politics Commandment I accept the thumbs, but I'd love to also hear an answer I can trust.

Comment author: knb 28 May 2016 12:52:12AM 2 points [-]

I'd estimate Sanders' chances as less than 10%, maybe a bit more than 5%.He would need a mass defection of superdelegates at this point, and it's possible they would be directed to jump en masse to someone else (like Biden) even if the DNC decides to dump Clinton.

View more: Next