Academics: unscrupulous ADS developers will use unsuspecting humans as a "moral crumple zone" to protect their imperfect systems from the moral consequences of inevitable failure
Unsuspecting humans:
Unsuspecting humans:
The only thing @m_c_elish didn't predict in this mess was that toxic social media-fueled consumerism would make serving as a "moral crumple zone" a status symbol papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
"How is this different than what AV developers are doing?"
There is a fundamental difference between using highly-trained professionals as safety operators and pushing dangerously immature ADS software to any clout-chasing rando gullible enough to pay for the pleasure.
There is a fundamental difference between using highly-trained professionals as safety operators and pushing dangerously immature ADS software to any clout-chasing rando gullible enough to pay for the pleasure.
"But what training?" you ask, as if anything I say will make you stop trying to justify this nonsense.
Here is the relevant language of SAE J3018, which is the minimum baseline guidance for safety operator training at (as far as I know) every legitimate AV developer.
Here is the relevant language of SAE J3018, which is the minimum baseline guidance for safety operator training at (as far as I know) every legitimate AV developer.
But training is only part of what separates rando consumer "testing" and legitimate AV development. The other big one is workload management: things like limiting testing time, always testing in teams, rotating teams/tasks, and more. None of this happens with consumer "testing."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
