korrents
Philip Koopman

Philip Koopman

@philip-koopman · 13 positions · On ppll ↗

Professor at Carnegie Mellon University who works on self-driving car safety and dependable embedded systems, principal technical contributor to the ANSI/UL 4600 autonomous-vehicle safety standard and author of How Safe Is Safe Enough? He writes the Safe Autonomy blog, which is largely an argument that the industry's public safety claims do not survive contact with the statistics.

Philip Koopman did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

2 of Philip Koopman's claims fit 2 mental models. Most often: Margin of safety, Second-order thinking.

Models we see in what they say

Our reading: their claim applies the idea without naming it. The claim is theirs; filing it here is ours.

Margin of safety

Leave room for being wrong, because sometimes you will be.

Used by 28 others

A self-driving car should be roughly ten times safer than a human driver before it is deployed, to leave engineering margin for what nobody can predict.

  1. Philip Koopman Professor at Carnegie Mellon University who works… Taken together, there is an argument to be made that AVs should be safer than human drivers by about a factor of 10 (being a nice round order of magnitude number) to leave engineering margin for the above considerations. The case for AVs being 10 to 100 times safer than human driverssafeautonomy.blogspot.com · 8 Jan 2023All korrents from this piece
    Their wordsTaken together, there is an argument to be made that AVs should be safer than human drivers by about a factor of 10 (being a nice round order of magnitude number) to leave engineering margin for the above considerations.

    ↗The case for AVs being 10 to 100 times safer than human driverssafeautonomy.blogspot.com

    8 Jan 2023

Second-order thinking

Ask "and then what?": follow a decision past its first effect to the ones that come after.

Used by 88 others

Whatever safety gain a driver-assistance system delivers is cancelled out by the driver complacency it creates.

  1. Philip Koopman Professor at Carnegie Mellon University who works… suggests that any steering automation safety gains (e.g., Level 2 autopilot) are approximately negated by driver complacency, with autopilot on being slightly worse than autopilot off Take Tesla safety claims with about a pound of saltsafeautonomy.blogspot.com · 19 Dec 2023All korrents from this piece
    Their wordssuggests that any steering automation safety gains (e.g., Level 2 autopilot) are approximately negated by driver complacency, with autopilot on being slightly worse than autopilot off

    ↗Take Tesla safety claims with about a pound of saltsafeautonomy.blogspot.com

    19 Dec 2023