5 ms·

> I really don't think this should be the car's responsibility. If there's a serious risk of people with guns ambushing you on a road, then it's not safe and yo

by csydas 10y ago

> I really don't think this should be the car's responsibility. If there's a serious risk of people with guns ambushing you on a road, then it's not safe and you shouldn't be driving there. How the self-driving car reacts to that is the least of my concerns. Well, I think the idea behind this prompt was more about how it would handle humans where there shouldn't be any. I would imagine that with the premise that the car would stop for unexpected pedestrians, a car jacking/mugging of this type should be as simple as simply find a remote road, wait for a car with a preferred target, and then intercept - the car would acquiesce and make a person vulnerable to an attack (as simple as smashed windows with a window breaker and then an attack on the occupant. The picture has an extreme outlier, but criminals adjust to technology pretty fast, especially when it makes their lives easier. It may not be armed gunmen looking to get you, but if you can be assured you'll get a target to stop, I'm not sure why criminals wouldn't exploit it. edit: change "attach" to "attack" as I meant it originally

aninhumer 10y ago
If they just want to steal your car, coming to a stop and abandoning the vehicle is probably the safest thing to do anyway. But if they actually intend to harm you, you've got bigger problems, and you should probably hire a professional defensive driver instead of expecting consumer AI to support your edge case.
- csydas 10y ago
  I'm not sure I'm explaiing the scenario well - this isn't a planned attack, it's an opportunity attack where you're the victim based simply on the fact that you happened to be there, much like a mugging. Assume the following for a moment: It is known that, when presented with pedestrians in an unexpected area, an automated car will plot away around them or will yield until they are no longer in the way. Supposed that with the condition, you were having your car drive you from downtown to your small suburb that requires going down any generally empty road. (i.e., no one is around because it's late) In the distance, 4 people form a loose barrier that the car can't safely pass through so it triggers the logic to yield to pedestrians. The people are muggers, and they quickly break the windows and proceed to mug. Yes, it's a very specific scenario, but if such a case of logic exists, how long until such a scenario becomes common place? This isn't asking AI to evaluate and protect people from targeted attacks or inventing paranoid delusions of importance, it's about figuring out how to respond to a fairly simple abuse of an often called for bit of logic in the AI.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    What do you think a human would do differently in this scenario? If a normal person is driving home late and sees even just one person standing in the road, they'll probably slow down for them before even thinking about it, just like the car. I think if this were such an effective way to mug people, it would already be a major problem. And again, you're talking about a car that's surrounded by cameras by design. It would be easy to include a button that immediately starts streaming all camera info to cloud storage (or indeed, just do so by default if mugging were such a huge problem).
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      If we define "normal person" to mean a person who lives in a safe country where carjackings are not commonplace, maybe.
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        Yes, that is the market I expect self-driving cars to target.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        You don't see any demand at all in, say, South Africa, or Brazil? I think that's delusional.
        aninhumer 10y ago
        Did I say that? I said I don't think they will be the (initial) target market, and thus the cars inability to deal with carjackers will be a non-issue.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  > But if they actually intend to harm you, you've got bigger problems, and you should probably hire a professional defensive driver instead of expecting consumer AI to support your edge case. I mean this is just reality in a lot of places; I don't see how you can just handwave it away. Cars are designed to operate in all kinds of extremes that probably don't apply to your personal situation.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >Cars are designed to operate in all kinds of extremes Yes, and self-driving cars will not be suitable for those extremes. I don't see how that's a major problem?
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      I don't see a lot of demand for a car that's only appropriate for pleasant Sunday drives.
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        There's a huge range of common usage between "pleasant Sunday drives" and "extreme defensive driving against armed goons". I don't think the latter is necessary for self-driving cars to be successful.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        But it's just an example, is the point. We don't have big carjacking rings, but we have plenty of extreme weather, old roads (even dirt roads depending on where you are), and other extreme circumstances that maybe don't matter to somebody who never wants to leave a forty-mile radius of Mountain View. Even in an idyll you could imagine some novel circumstance created by, say, downed power lines.
justin66 10y ago
This is a method of committing a carjacking that works today, it's not some kind of new exploit. Very few people will intentionally run down a person in the road, as opposed to stopping, because they think something fishy might be going on. The scenario I'm familiar with involved a bicyclist crashing, or laying down, his bike on a slow stretch of road in an industrial area. His companions would approach the car when it stopped. The deterrent for this is a harsh criminal penalty, not AI. It never became a commonplace crime, in spite of being relatively simple.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I think you can get on Liveleak and find lots of video evidence that there are places where drivers will not stop for precisely this reason.
  - justin66 10y ago
    Rather than train automotive AI to handle this case, we should just stipulate that if you live in a godforsaken place that might require you to run over somebody during your drive in order to survive banditry, you should keep your seatbelt fully fastened and remain aware enough to retake control of the vehicle at short notice should it stop. I'm sure some airline has a sign that could be reused for this purpose. Or, you know, you could just drive yourself. Or pay a driver. Or stop fantasizing about embarrassingly absurd stuff that has nothing to do with the efficacy of automotive autonomy.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      The entire point of the article you're discussing is that there are a million bizarre little circumstances like this that the software will probably fail to take into account, not that carjacking specifically is unsurmountable. This stuff isn't "embarrassingly absurd;" it happens daily.
      - justin66 10y ago
        > The entire point of the article you're discussing is that there are a million bizarre little circumstances like this In defense of the article, which is pretty reasonable, it doesn't mention the ridiculous hijacking example you were harping on. That is quite a unique situation, technically and ethically. The other examples you gave: bad roads, downed power lines, weather, and fire are all much more reasonable examples, with much more straightforward solutions available. It's essentially obstacle avoidance and exception handling. The article's example of situations involving not having any safe place to stop is even more interesting. edit: I was referring to TFA, not to the artist who illustrated some stuff on his blog and shared it here. Which was also a fine effort...

by csydas 10y ago

aninhumer 10y ago

If they just want to steal your car, coming to a stop and abandoning the vehicle is probably the safest thing to do anyway. But if they actually intend to harm you, you've got bigger problems, and you should probably hire a professional defensive driver instead of expecting consumer AI to support your edge case.

csydas 10y ago
I'm not sure I'm explaiing the scenario well - this isn't a planned attack, it's an opportunity attack where you're the victim based simply on the fact that you happened to be there, much like a mugging. Assume the following for a moment: It is known that, when presented with pedestrians in an unexpected area, an automated car will plot away around them or will yield until they are no longer in the way. Supposed that with the condition, you were having your car drive you from downtown to your small suburb that requires going down any generally empty road. (i.e., no one is around because it's late) In the distance, 4 people form a loose barrier that the car can't safely pass through so it triggers the logic to yield to pedestrians. The people are muggers, and they quickly break the windows and proceed to mug. Yes, it's a very specific scenario, but if such a case of logic exists, how long until such a scenario becomes common place? This isn't asking AI to evaluate and protect people from targeted attacks or inventing paranoid delusions of importance, it's about figuring out how to respond to a fairly simple abuse of an often called for bit of logic in the AI.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  What do you think a human would do differently in this scenario? If a normal person is driving home late and sees even just one person standing in the road, they'll probably slow down for them before even thinking about it, just like the car. I think if this were such an effective way to mug people, it would already be a major problem. And again, you're talking about a car that's surrounded by cameras by design. It would be easy to include a button that immediately starts streaming all camera info to cloud storage (or indeed, just do so by default if mugging were such a huge problem).
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    If we define "normal person" to mean a person who lives in a safe country where carjackings are not commonplace, maybe.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      Yes, that is the market I expect self-driving cars to target.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        You don't see any demand at all in, say, South Africa, or Brazil? I think that's delusional.
        aninhumer 10y ago
        Did I say that? I said I don't think they will be the (initial) target market, and thus the cars inability to deal with carjackers will be a non-issue.
emodendroket 10y ago
> But if they actually intend to harm you, you've got bigger problems, and you should probably hire a professional defensive driver instead of expecting consumer AI to support your edge case. I mean this is just reality in a lot of places; I don't see how you can just handwave it away. Cars are designed to operate in all kinds of extremes that probably don't apply to your personal situation.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >Cars are designed to operate in all kinds of extremes Yes, and self-driving cars will not be suitable for those extremes. I don't see how that's a major problem?
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I don't see a lot of demand for a car that's only appropriate for pleasant Sunday drives.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      There's a huge range of common usage between "pleasant Sunday drives" and "extreme defensive driving against armed goons". I don't think the latter is necessary for self-driving cars to be successful.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        But it's just an example, is the point. We don't have big carjacking rings, but we have plenty of extreme weather, old roads (even dirt roads depending on where you are), and other extreme circumstances that maybe don't matter to somebody who never wants to leave a forty-mile radius of Mountain View. Even in an idyll you could imagine some novel circumstance created by, say, downed power lines.

justin66 10y ago

This is a method of committing a carjacking that works today, it's not some kind of new exploit. Very few people will intentionally run down a person in the road, as opposed to stopping, because they think something fishy might be going on. The scenario I'm familiar with involved a bicyclist crashing, or laying down, his bike on a slow stretch of road in an industrial area. His companions would approach the car when it stopped. The deterrent for this is a harsh criminal penalty, not AI. It never became a commonplace crime, in spite of being relatively simple.

emodendroket 10y ago
I think you can get on Liveleak and find lots of video evidence that there are places where drivers will not stop for precisely this reason.
- justin66 10y ago
  Rather than train automotive AI to handle this case, we should just stipulate that if you live in a godforsaken place that might require you to run over somebody during your drive in order to survive banditry, you should keep your seatbelt fully fastened and remain aware enough to retake control of the vehicle at short notice should it stop. I'm sure some airline has a sign that could be reused for this purpose. Or, you know, you could just drive yourself. Or pay a driver. Or stop fantasizing about embarrassingly absurd stuff that has nothing to do with the efficacy of automotive autonomy.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    The entire point of the article you're discussing is that there are a million bizarre little circumstances like this that the software will probably fail to take into account, not that carjacking specifically is unsurmountable. This stuff isn't "embarrassingly absurd;" it happens daily.
    - justin66 10y ago
      > The entire point of the article you're discussing is that there are a million bizarre little circumstances like this In defense of the article, which is pretty reasonable, it doesn't mention the ridiculous hijacking example you were harping on. That is quite a unique situation, technically and ethically. The other examples you gave: bad roads, downed power lines, weather, and fire are all much more reasonable examples, with much more straightforward solutions available. It's essentially obstacle avoidance and exception handling. The article's example of situations involving not having any safe place to stop is even more interesting. edit: I was referring to TFA, not to the artist who illustrated some stuff on his blog and shared it here. Which was also a fine effort...