[coinjobber]

No. 3 million miles of observation. You can get a pretty exact and conservative estimate with a bayesian poisson process model. I don't have the time to run the numbers right now, but my guess is the posterior estimate that Uber's fatal accident rate is higher than a human's is >90%, even if taking the human accident rate as a starting prior.

[jfoutz]

I thought Uber had to have a human take over every 13 miles.

It’s more like 10 miles of observation 300,000 times. Or rather an attentive human can be 50x better than average.

[btrettel]

I'd be very interested in seeing the math if you have the time later.

[gpm]

95% - erring on assuming Uber has driven more miles than they probably have.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16621118

[comex]

Hmm; if I understand correctly, in that link you show that if Uber’s AI has the same risk of killing people as a human driver, then the prior probability of an accident occurring when it did or earlier was 5%. That’s significant, but it’s not the same measure as the probability that the AI has a higher risk (which would require a prior distribution).