I looked at a bunch of the articles and rules listed on the website but didn’t review the paper in-depth. The rules don’t mention pedestrians, but you are right that the paper does has an extremely cursory treatment of them. It basically says “assume the pedestrians are also following RSS”, which of course, is in direct contradiction to your statement that if all cars on the road follow RSS, that there will be no accidents, since pedestrians are of course part of the road environment, and they do not follow RSS in-reality (and as such RSS cannot prove that no collisions with pedestrians will occur, or that the only way to do a reasonable thing when interfacing with pedestrians will require some collision with another vehicle).
@Martin Randall You reacted that you would be happy to bet! Would love to take your money. Is there any third-party adjudicator who you would trust to adjudicate whether the following statement is true:
In the case of RSS, it’s provable that if other cars follow the law, and/or all cars on the road abide by the rules, those cars will only have accidents if their sensors are incorrect.
Miscommunication. I highlight-reacted your text “It doesn’t even mention pedestrians” as the claim I’d be happy to bet on. Since you replied I double-checked the Internet Archive Snapshot snapshot on 2024-09-05. It also includes the text about children in a school drop-off zone under rule 4 (accessible via page source).
I read the later discussion and noticed that you still claimed “the rules don’t mention pedestrians”, so I figured you never noticed the text I quoted. Since you were so passionate about “obvious falsehoods” I wanted to bring it to your attention.
I am updating down on the usefulness of highlight-reacts vs whole-comment reacts. It’s a shame because I like their expressive power. In my browser the highlight-react doesn’t seem to be giving the correct hover effect—it’s not highlighting the text—so perhaps this contributed to the miscommunication. It sometimes works, so perhaps something about overlapping highlights is causing a bug?
See this discussion: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3P8WBwLyfPBEkbG3c/proveably-safe-self-driving-cars-modulo-assumptions?commentId=kBAub9SRGn3FEj6Kv
@Martin Randall You reacted that you would be happy to bet! Would love to take your money. Is there any third-party adjudicator who you would trust to adjudicate whether the following statement is true:
Miscommunication. I highlight-reacted your text “It doesn’t even mention pedestrians” as the claim I’d be happy to bet on. Since you replied I double-checked the Internet Archive Snapshot snapshot on 2024-09-05. It also includes the text about children in a school drop-off zone under rule 4 (accessible via page source).
I read the later discussion and noticed that you still claimed “the rules don’t mention pedestrians”, so I figured you never noticed the text I quoted. Since you were so passionate about “obvious falsehoods” I wanted to bring it to your attention.
I am updating down on the usefulness of highlight-reacts vs whole-comment reacts. It’s a shame because I like their expressive power. In my browser the highlight-react doesn’t seem to be giving the correct hover effect—it’s not highlighting the text—so perhaps this contributed to the miscommunication. It sometimes works, so perhaps something about overlapping highlights is causing a bug?