5 ms·

> and am currently in the middle of a 360. You have no faith in AI. The car will always be better at driving than the human. It would be much better at hand

by mchahn 11y ago

> and am currently in the middle of a 360. You have no faith in AI. The car will always be better at driving than the human. It would be much better at handling a 360 than a human ever could. Actually humans are very bad at handling 360s unless you are a pro.

timClicks 11y ago
As long as the sensors, networking, compute and actuators are all functional.
Alupis 11y ago
Humans are very, very good at handling unknown complex situations. In order for any AI to handle any situation, it must first be programmed to do so. If that situation was an unknown, you get undefined behavior. Undefined behavior in a car traveling down the road is not a good thing to place a bet on... especially your life. This is why majority of sane driverless vehicle talk has concluded a human driver must always be in the driver seat, ready to take control. There's an impossible volume of failure modes a driverless car must contend with, everything from someone pointing an infrared laser at the distance sensors, to complete power failure, to a sudden rockslide, a bird darting in front of the car, lines missing from a windy and hilly road, etc. In normal, daily mundane driving - driverless cars are expected to excel. Sitting in traffic is mind numbing, and mistakes happen when driver's minds wonder. In "active" driving situations, a human brain will almost always excel.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Humans are mostly terrible at handling unknown complex situations on the road. For many human drivers on the roads right now, the response to a sudden weird situation is either going to be "brake heavily" or "swerve dangerously." You don't have to get "undefined behavior" in response to an unknown situation. The AI can simply default to braking to a stop in the absence of any better programmed alternative. This will already put it on par with most drivers. Better, in fact, because the AI can begin braking instantly. I personally find that the majority of driverless vehicle talk vastly overestimates the average human driver, and demands unreasonable perfection from the computers.
  - jzwinck 11y ago
    Not only can a computer begin braking more promptly, it can brake more accurately. Many human drivers hit the brakes 100% when they sense danger, then the full force of braking startles them (no training), then they let off again. This can increase stopping distances dramatically. Next up is per-wheel braking. Not just stability control, but actual directed thrust. The computer can control each wheel independently. Humans just have one brake pedal. Four wheel steering might even make a comeback.
  - beat 11y ago
    Remember the two second rule? Instantaneous response would be a huge improvement in many situations already.
    - obsurveyor 11y ago
      With today's aggressive and impatient drivers, the 2 second rule is very hard to maintain because they'll just pass you and fill the spot, every time.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I see this stated a lot, but I think it's exaggerated. My car's adaptive cruise control follows at about 2.5 seconds when on the maximum setting, which is where I almost always keep it, including in heavy traffic. People do occasionally jump in, but then the car just backs off a bit and starts following the new car at 2.5 seconds. It's not a constant churn, and it doesn't cause any significant delay. And this is in the DC area, with dense traffic and ridiculous drivers. When people say that it doesn't work, I really think they're just saying that they can't stand having other people get ahead by breaking the rules, and they'd rather drive more dangerously than let that happen.
  - brandon272 11y ago
    > For many human drivers on the roads right now, the response to a sudden weird situation is either going to be "brake heavily" or "swerve dangerously." Or a combination of both, potentially causing the tires to slip and the car to leave the roadway! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSE3fkeHAmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSE3fkeHAmo
- gist 11y ago
  > This is why majority of sane driverless vehicle talk has concluded a human driver must always be in the driver seat, ready to take control. Would add also something that requires an actual driver to take the wheel periodically to not get lazy and forget what it's like to drive (as apparently what has happened with some airline pilots?)
- sp332 11y ago
  But you only have to program it once and then all the cars get the update. That's a lot better than hoping every individual human got properly trained and remembers what to do. The list of situations a car has to react to is not infinite. You can program a reasonable response for a broader list of situations than you could for a human. And really, a human would fare very badly in your situations so a computer could hardly do worse.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > But you only have to program it once and then all the cars get the update Not exactly. The situations we're discussing are more-or-less unique, having their own environment variables to contend with. Not to mention, there are scenarios where a driverless car will never be able to operate (such as off roads, or back-country/non-mapped areas, or when road lines are covered by snow or just not there due to road construction, etc...). Roads are anything but a constant. I cannot foresee any future where someone can get into a vehicle, in the back seat, tell the vehicle where to go, and then promptly take a nap. Even with high-grade multi-million dollar vehicles such as military drones, they still require two humans to be at the controls at any time (even though in the air, collision opportunities are almost non-existent). The sensors and computers in a mere $20,000 vehicle aren't going to compete with this stuff. A human will always have to pay attention to the road and be ready to take control. This aspect almost completely nullifies the desire for a driverless vehicle.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  I tend to think the "A human driver must be ready to take over" line of thinking has a lot to do with liability as well. I just think it sets up an unfair situation where the human will often fail.
- ghaff 11y ago
  >This is why majority of sane driverless vehicle talk has concluded a human driver must always be in the driver seat, ready to take control. And people who do research in this area have concluded that this doesn't work. People let their attention drift (even if they don't actively perform some other task) and, even if people are more or less paying attention, they haven't been driving and switching modes in that way is difficult. We're definitely reaching the point with assistive driving systems where there probably needs to be more discussion about how much assistance makes sense if no one is willing to fully turn over control.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > In order for any AI to handle any situation, it must first be programmed to do so. If that situation was an unknown, you get undefined behavior. No, that's not how AI nor computers work. It's quite trivial to have a default behavior like "brake", the notion that a new situation will confuse the computer is just you watching too many movies.
TrevorJ 11y ago
>The car will always be better at driving than the human. I don't think this is true yet. We can interpret the incoming data incredibly well in ways the machine vision can't yet match. This is absolutely vital for driving. The difference between an empty trash bag in the road and a toddler in the road is a matter of vital importance, and correctly identifying the difference matters a lot. Humans area actually capable of being incredibly good at driving. The problem is we are also incredibly unreliable.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  I wouldn't say the difference matters a lot. Instead humans and computers would just have different thresholds for when to stop and when to run over something. If a computer is less accurate at distinguishing them, then it'll simply err on the side of caution more often than a human. You would find there are more inconvenient stops, not that more more babies get killed. I'm sure I've stopped for empty trash bags before because I wasn't sure if they contained something solid. That doesn't mean I failed as a driver. Everything went fine. Same if it's a computer but it might stop more often than a human.
  - TrevorJ 11y ago
    This assumes that in every situation coming to a controlled stop is an option. That is almost certainly not the case. Many times the choice is between running (an object) over or making some kind of risky maneuver to avoid it.

by mchahn 11y ago

timClicks 11y ago

As long as the sensors, networking, compute and actuators are all functional.

Alupis 11y ago

Humans are very, very good at handling unknown complex situations. In order for any AI to handle any situation, it must first be programmed to do so. If that situation was an unknown, you get undefined behavior. Undefined behavior in a car traveling down the road is not a good thing to place a bet on... especially your life. This is why majority of sane driverless vehicle talk has concluded a human driver must always be in the driver seat, ready to take control. There's an impossible volume of failure modes a driverless car must contend with, everything from someone pointing an infrared laser at the distance sensors, to complete power failure, to a sudden rockslide, a bird darting in front of the car, lines missing from a windy and hilly road, etc. In normal, daily mundane driving - driverless cars are expected to excel. Sitting in traffic is mind numbing, and mistakes happen when driver's minds wonder. In "active" driving situations, a human brain will almost always excel.

mikeash 11y ago
Humans are mostly terrible at handling unknown complex situations on the road. For many human drivers on the roads right now, the response to a sudden weird situation is either going to be "brake heavily" or "swerve dangerously." You don't have to get "undefined behavior" in response to an unknown situation. The AI can simply default to braking to a stop in the absence of any better programmed alternative. This will already put it on par with most drivers. Better, in fact, because the AI can begin braking instantly. I personally find that the majority of driverless vehicle talk vastly overestimates the average human driver, and demands unreasonable perfection from the computers.
- jzwinck 11y ago
  Not only can a computer begin braking more promptly, it can brake more accurately. Many human drivers hit the brakes 100% when they sense danger, then the full force of braking startles them (no training), then they let off again. This can increase stopping distances dramatically. Next up is per-wheel braking. Not just stability control, but actual directed thrust. The computer can control each wheel independently. Humans just have one brake pedal. Four wheel steering might even make a comeback.
- beat 11y ago
  Remember the two second rule? Instantaneous response would be a huge improvement in many situations already.
  - obsurveyor 11y ago
    With today's aggressive and impatient drivers, the 2 second rule is very hard to maintain because they'll just pass you and fill the spot, every time.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I see this stated a lot, but I think it's exaggerated. My car's adaptive cruise control follows at about 2.5 seconds when on the maximum setting, which is where I almost always keep it, including in heavy traffic. People do occasionally jump in, but then the car just backs off a bit and starts following the new car at 2.5 seconds. It's not a constant churn, and it doesn't cause any significant delay. And this is in the DC area, with dense traffic and ridiculous drivers. When people say that it doesn't work, I really think they're just saying that they can't stand having other people get ahead by breaking the rules, and they'd rather drive more dangerously than let that happen.
- brandon272 11y ago
  > For many human drivers on the roads right now, the response to a sudden weird situation is either going to be "brake heavily" or "swerve dangerously." Or a combination of both, potentially causing the tires to slip and the car to leave the roadway! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSE3fkeHAmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSE3fkeHAmo
gist 11y ago
> This is why majority of sane driverless vehicle talk has concluded a human driver must always be in the driver seat, ready to take control. Would add also something that requires an actual driver to take the wheel periodically to not get lazy and forget what it's like to drive (as apparently what has happened with some airline pilots?)
sp332 11y ago
But you only have to program it once and then all the cars get the update. That's a lot better than hoping every individual human got properly trained and remembers what to do. The list of situations a car has to react to is not infinite. You can program a reasonable response for a broader list of situations than you could for a human. And really, a human would fare very badly in your situations so a computer could hardly do worse.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > But you only have to program it once and then all the cars get the update Not exactly. The situations we're discussing are more-or-less unique, having their own environment variables to contend with. Not to mention, there are scenarios where a driverless car will never be able to operate (such as off roads, or back-country/non-mapped areas, or when road lines are covered by snow or just not there due to road construction, etc...). Roads are anything but a constant. I cannot foresee any future where someone can get into a vehicle, in the back seat, tell the vehicle where to go, and then promptly take a nap. Even with high-grade multi-million dollar vehicles such as military drones, they still require two humans to be at the controls at any time (even though in the air, collision opportunities are almost non-existent). The sensors and computers in a mere $20,000 vehicle aren't going to compete with this stuff. A human will always have to pay attention to the road and be ready to take control. This aspect almost completely nullifies the desire for a driverless vehicle.
TrevorJ 11y ago
I tend to think the "A human driver must be ready to take over" line of thinking has a lot to do with liability as well. I just think it sets up an unfair situation where the human will often fail.
ghaff 11y ago
>This is why majority of sane driverless vehicle talk has concluded a human driver must always be in the driver seat, ready to take control. And people who do research in this area have concluded that this doesn't work. People let their attention drift (even if they don't actively perform some other task) and, even if people are more or less paying attention, they haven't been driving and switching modes in that way is difficult. We're definitely reaching the point with assistive driving systems where there probably needs to be more discussion about how much assistance makes sense if no one is willing to fully turn over control.
gnaritas 11y ago
> In order for any AI to handle any situation, it must first be programmed to do so. If that situation was an unknown, you get undefined behavior. No, that's not how AI nor computers work. It's quite trivial to have a default behavior like "brake", the notion that a new situation will confuse the computer is just you watching too many movies.

TrevorJ 11y ago

>The car will always be better at driving than the human. I don't think this is true yet. We can interpret the incoming data incredibly well in ways the machine vision can't yet match. This is absolutely vital for driving. The difference between an empty trash bag in the road and a toddler in the road is a matter of vital importance, and correctly identifying the difference matters a lot. Humans area actually capable of being incredibly good at driving. The problem is we are also incredibly unreliable.

Nutmog 11y ago
I wouldn't say the difference matters a lot. Instead humans and computers would just have different thresholds for when to stop and when to run over something. If a computer is less accurate at distinguishing them, then it'll simply err on the side of caution more often than a human. You would find there are more inconvenient stops, not that more more babies get killed. I'm sure I've stopped for empty trash bags before because I wasn't sure if they contained something solid. That doesn't mean I failed as a driver. Everything went fine. Same if it's a computer but it might stop more often than a human.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  This assumes that in every situation coming to a controlled stop is an option. That is almost certainly not the case. Many times the choice is between running (an object) over or making some kind of risky maneuver to avoid it.