Readers often ask: "Is Rung-3 of the Ladder really needed for practical decision making?". Here is a very practical application -- the crashing of self-driving cars -- that hinges entirely on Rung-3 analysis: https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/why-self-driving-cars-crash-230700981.html @vardi @eliasbareinboim @smueller @analisereal @DrBobGoldberg
A self-driving car crash is not just a failure.
It is a counterfactual question:
What would have needed to be different for this crash not to happen?
That is why causality matters. Not as philosophy. As failure forensics.
Readers often ask: "Is Rung-3 of the Ladder really needed for practical decision making?". Here is a very practical application -- the crashing of self-driving cars -- that hinges entirely on Rung-3 analysis: https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/why-self-driving-cars-crash-230700981.html @vardi @eliasbareinboim @smueller @analisereal @DrBobGoldberg
@yudapearl @vardi @eliasbareinboim @smueller @analisereal Causal inference for self-driving is neat, but the math still feels overhyped tbh.
Readers often ask: "Is Rung-3 of the Ladder really needed for practical decision making?". Here is a very practical application -- the crashing of self-driving cars -- that hinges entirely on Rung-3 analysis: https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/why-self-driving-cars-crash-230700981.html @vardi @eliasbareinboim @smueller @analisereal @DrBobGoldberg