5 ms·

The issue is that upgrading every sign with a transmitter is costly, would require power and ongoing maintenance (not to mention vandalism - a sign is just meta

The issue is that upgrading every sign with a transmitter is costly, would require power and ongoing maintenance (not to mention vandalism - a sign is just metal and usually pretty resistant, but any electronics will be destroyed by vandals in no time). An online database that can be cached (so you aren't in trouble if your network drops while you go through a tunnel or similar) is much cheaper to implement than upgrading physical signs.

pimmen 9y ago
Since the sign is just metal, it could serve as the antenna. Bury the transmitter beneath the ground, there you could also hook it up to the power grid (unless you use the sign's surface to act as a solar panel). I would like to see vandals mess with that. However, it ain't cheap and simple to implement, I agree with that. In countries like Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Canada and Australia they probably have the means to outfit their cities since they have the wealth to do it, but the rural areas would be a real challenge since they are so sparsely populated even when the money is there. In contrast to when these countries pioneered the implementation of the Internet, there's nothing like the phone network to piggy back this time.
dogma1138 9y ago
Passive or Semi-Active RFID isn't expensive. All signs can be a victim of vandalsim. I think computer vision, a sign DB an IR water marked QR code and some RFID combined can produce a pretty robust and tamper reselient system.
mannykannot 9y ago
This whole line of thought is somewhat beside the point, because the larger issue is not just about recognizing signs, but features of the visual field in general. If a system cannot be trusted to identify a road sign, I do not trust it to recognize a person.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  Or any other obstacle for that matter.
- IanCal 9y ago
  The system cannot be trusted to recognise a road sign that has been very specifically adjusted to fool it, just like a person running into the road at night dressed in black is hard to see. I'm not really concerned about the risk to humans that have been very precisely dressed to fool cars.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    It so happens that both Space Shuttle losses involved "the problems seen so far are not directly relevant, so we will ignore them" thinking.
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, until these systems can recognize that what they are seeing is not trustworthy like humans do on a day to day basis, the systems cannot be trusted or even depended on in a real world setting.
    - IanCal 9y ago
      The larger systems can, just because the visual system says one thing doesn't mean it's trusted. Google made a short comment on it recently about cars with stickers of realistic scenes on them. But in the context of deliberately hidden or altered pedestrians, there's no risk I can see here. The pedestrian would have to be trying to look like something else or hide in a very precise way, and they can do that to regular drivers right now.
      - mannykannot 9y ago
        The idea that this is only an issue of disguised pedestrians is a red herring that should not stop people considering the broader implications of the fragility of vision and other ML systems. When a system does not always function according to its intended purpose, it is sound engineering judgement to consider whether this has implications beyond the specific cases that have been found, and there have been some tragic outcomes when the people in charge found it expedient to not do so. In the case of ML, the principle that systems can generalize appropriately beyond their training sets is central, and anything that raises concerns over the generality of that capability needs to be taken seriously. You can certainly hold the opinion that it will not turn out to be a major problem, but the burden of proof lies with those claiming that the systems (after modification, if necessary) are safe enough, and avoiding the question is the opposite of discharging that burden.

pimmen 9y ago

Since the sign is just metal, it could serve as the antenna. Bury the transmitter beneath the ground, there you could also hook it up to the power grid (unless you use the sign's surface to act as a solar panel). I would like to see vandals mess with that. However, it ain't cheap and simple to implement, I agree with that. In countries like Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Canada and Australia they probably have the means to outfit their cities since they have the wealth to do it, but the rural areas would be a real challenge since they are so sparsely populated even when the money is there. In contrast to when these countries pioneered the implementation of the Internet, there's nothing like the phone network to piggy back this time.

dogma1138 9y ago

Passive or Semi-Active RFID isn't expensive. All signs can be a victim of vandalsim. I think computer vision, a sign DB an IR water marked QR code and some RFID combined can produce a pretty robust and tamper reselient system.

mannykannot 9y ago

This whole line of thought is somewhat beside the point, because the larger issue is not just about recognizing signs, but features of the visual field in general. If a system cannot be trusted to identify a road sign, I do not trust it to recognize a person.

Cyph0n 9y ago
Or any other obstacle for that matter.
IanCal 9y ago
The system cannot be trusted to recognise a road sign that has been very specifically adjusted to fool it, just like a person running into the road at night dressed in black is hard to see. I'm not really concerned about the risk to humans that have been very precisely dressed to fool cars.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  It so happens that both Space Shuttle losses involved "the problems seen so far are not directly relevant, so we will ignore them" thinking.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, until these systems can recognize that what they are seeing is not trustworthy like humans do on a day to day basis, the systems cannot be trusted or even depended on in a real world setting.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    The larger systems can, just because the visual system says one thing doesn't mean it's trusted. Google made a short comment on it recently about cars with stickers of realistic scenes on them. But in the context of deliberately hidden or altered pedestrians, there's no risk I can see here. The pedestrian would have to be trying to look like something else or hide in a very precise way, and they can do that to regular drivers right now.
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      The idea that this is only an issue of disguised pedestrians is a red herring that should not stop people considering the broader implications of the fragility of vision and other ML systems. When a system does not always function according to its intended purpose, it is sound engineering judgement to consider whether this has implications beyond the specific cases that have been found, and there have been some tragic outcomes when the people in charge found it expedient to not do so. In the case of ML, the principle that systems can generalize appropriately beyond their training sets is central, and anything that raises concerns over the generality of that capability needs to be taken seriously. You can certainly hold the opinion that it will not turn out to be a major problem, but the burden of proof lies with those claiming that the systems (after modification, if necessary) are safe enough, and avoiding the question is the opposite of discharging that burden.