5 ms·

This is simply not true. The dashcam footage released by Tempe police does not depict the driving conditions at the site of the accident accurately at all. Chec

This is simply not true. The dashcam footage released by Tempe police does not depict the driving conditions at the site of the accident accurately at all. Check out [1] for the actual driving conditions at night. I'm not usually the one to talk about conspiracy, but Tempe police had no legal responsibility to release the footage since the investigation is still ongoing. Couple this with the statement released by the Tempe chief of police defending Uber, I'm inclined to believe Uber and some state government officials are working together to sway the public opinion and minimize damage. At the end of the day, the victim is painted as an idiot who practically committed suicide. This is gross injustice. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0

spaceribs 9y ago
Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that. My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  But how else do you imagine scenarios like these are tested? Normally there aren't a lot of people willing to jump randomly out in front of cars to test their reaction.
  - spaceribs 9y ago
    I really don't know. Even with all the hours of recorded road time by Google/Uber used as a testbed for proper driving conditions, most machine learning systems still suffer from figuring out ways of cheating[1], and in those cases it could be fatal. [1] "The program even learns how to take advantage of bugs and glitches, like timing jumps so that Mario begins falling again at the exact time that he makes contact with a Goomba. Mario's invincible when he's falling, so the touch kills the Goomba, not Mario, and it gives him a further jump boost." http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved
    - rgbrenner 9y ago
      That's a problem for the test design. Maybe we can develop an approach that uses more randomness to test these systems. But I dont see how you can avoid having a simulation. These events are just too rare to wait until they occur in real life.
    - Erlangolem 9y ago
      You know, medical research would be so much faster and easier and cheaper if we could just test new drugs and devices and procedures on humans. We don’t. We shouldn’t. Half of all humans who have ever lived, died from mosquito-borne illnes, about 5,000,000,000 human lives. People who argue that the relatively paltry number of people killed by automobiles justifies a little “sacrifice” to prevent it in the future, never seem to apply that callousness to other arenas. Certainly those people are not lining up to volunteer as test subjects. We don’t get to make that choice for others. If you want to try give yourself Yellow Fever(1) to help prevent its spread, you go for it. If you want to infect other people for the same reason (1), go to hell. The same applies to cars. If you’re volunteering to push a bike on a dark test track for Uber, you go be you. If you want to make the state of Arizona’s citizens unconsenting guinea pigs for the same reason, go to hell. This isn’t a new concept, it’s just a new tech, the moral dimension hasn’t changed. The fact that ethical R&D is harder than unethical R&D isn’t news, and isn’t an excuse. (1) https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3_5.html https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3...
      - spaceribs 9y ago
        I think comparing this to human drug trials is an appeal to emotion. I also think you're saying that bad tests are better than no tests, which I don't agree with. These would be bad tests because they wouldn't constitute the complicated reality of driving, they inherently only summarize the output of such a complex system.
        Erlangolem 9y ago
        If you think it’s an appeal to emotion, make a real argument in that direction, don’t bluntly state the contents of your head and move on. As it stands, you just appear morally bankrupt. I’m strongly inclined to believe that’s the case, and your inability to make a cogent argument makes me wonder about what else you’re lacking. By the way, you may be misunderstanding “appeal to emotion” as “having emotions” and that’s worrying. I can only hope your attitude is literally pathological, and not just your personality. Either way, please never work near people, or I’m a critical system effecting people.
  - jimmaswell 9y ago
    I imagine just rolling some objects across the road or some self-riding bicycles should be enough.
- simion314 9y ago
  But what if the self driving cars fail the simulation? The simulation would be the first thing the car needs to pass, if car passes the simulated, then special tests, then you get approved to test on public roads with a security driver, I have no idea when is the time to test without a driver.
flogic 9y ago
The thing is that it doesn't really matter. There are only 2 options here. Either, the car should have seen the woman and taken corrective action or it was driving faster than it can see. Just because the speed limit says X doesn't mean that's the speed you should be going. Often, actual conditions require driving slower.
stickfigure 9y ago
I know this is going to sound uncharitable and I acknowledge that any death is tragic but... This person carelessly crossed a busy road at night! The victim practically did commit suicide. She could have just as easily been killed by a human-driving car, just like thousands of pedestrians do every year. Why are we so quick to try to blame the car? At least the car was in the right place.
- dbt00 9y ago
  The car was not in the right place, or it would not have hit her. In the state of Arizona a pedestrian has right of way in front of any vehicle, and the driver must yield to any pedestrian on the same side of the road. Edited to add: We don't know anything about her physical or mental condition that might have made it difficult for her to perceive the car or the distance when she was crossing, so to assume that she had perfect perception and chose to cross in front anyway assumes facts not in evidence.
  - dbt00 9y ago
    Coming back to this, I was wrong about the details of Arizona law. They require pedestrians to yield to drivers outside of crosswalks, marked or unmarked. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00793.htm https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00793.htm However, I still think Uber violated 28-794.1 and .3. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall: 1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway. 2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary. 3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00794.htm https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00794.htm

spaceribs 9y ago

Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that. My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.

rgbrenner 9y ago
But how else do you imagine scenarios like these are tested? Normally there aren't a lot of people willing to jump randomly out in front of cars to test their reaction.
- spaceribs 9y ago
  I really don't know. Even with all the hours of recorded road time by Google/Uber used as a testbed for proper driving conditions, most machine learning systems still suffer from figuring out ways of cheating[1], and in those cases it could be fatal. [1] "The program even learns how to take advantage of bugs and glitches, like timing jumps so that Mario begins falling again at the exact time that he makes contact with a Goomba. Mario's invincible when he's falling, so the touch kills the Goomba, not Mario, and it gives him a further jump boost." http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    That's a problem for the test design. Maybe we can develop an approach that uses more randomness to test these systems. But I dont see how you can avoid having a simulation. These events are just too rare to wait until they occur in real life.
  - Erlangolem 9y ago
    You know, medical research would be so much faster and easier and cheaper if we could just test new drugs and devices and procedures on humans. We don’t. We shouldn’t. Half of all humans who have ever lived, died from mosquito-borne illnes, about 5,000,000,000 human lives. People who argue that the relatively paltry number of people killed by automobiles justifies a little “sacrifice” to prevent it in the future, never seem to apply that callousness to other arenas. Certainly those people are not lining up to volunteer as test subjects. We don’t get to make that choice for others. If you want to try give yourself Yellow Fever(1) to help prevent its spread, you go for it. If you want to infect other people for the same reason (1), go to hell. The same applies to cars. If you’re volunteering to push a bike on a dark test track for Uber, you go be you. If you want to make the state of Arizona’s citizens unconsenting guinea pigs for the same reason, go to hell. This isn’t a new concept, it’s just a new tech, the moral dimension hasn’t changed. The fact that ethical R&D is harder than unethical R&D isn’t news, and isn’t an excuse. (1) https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3_5.html https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3...
    - spaceribs 9y ago
      I think comparing this to human drug trials is an appeal to emotion. I also think you're saying that bad tests are better than no tests, which I don't agree with. These would be bad tests because they wouldn't constitute the complicated reality of driving, they inherently only summarize the output of such a complex system.
      - Erlangolem 9y ago
        If you think it’s an appeal to emotion, make a real argument in that direction, don’t bluntly state the contents of your head and move on. As it stands, you just appear morally bankrupt. I’m strongly inclined to believe that’s the case, and your inability to make a cogent argument makes me wonder about what else you’re lacking. By the way, you may be misunderstanding “appeal to emotion” as “having emotions” and that’s worrying. I can only hope your attitude is literally pathological, and not just your personality. Either way, please never work near people, or I’m a critical system effecting people.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  I imagine just rolling some objects across the road or some self-riding bicycles should be enough.
simion314 9y ago
But what if the self driving cars fail the simulation? The simulation would be the first thing the car needs to pass, if car passes the simulated, then special tests, then you get approved to test on public roads with a security driver, I have no idea when is the time to test without a driver.

flogic 9y ago

The thing is that it doesn't really matter. There are only 2 options here. Either, the car should have seen the woman and taken corrective action or it was driving faster than it can see. Just because the speed limit says X doesn't mean that's the speed you should be going. Often, actual conditions require driving slower.

stickfigure 9y ago

I know this is going to sound uncharitable and I acknowledge that any death is tragic but... This person carelessly crossed a busy road at night! The victim practically did commit suicide. She could have just as easily been killed by a human-driving car, just like thousands of pedestrians do every year. Why are we so quick to try to blame the car? At least the car was in the right place.

dbt00 9y ago
The car was not in the right place, or it would not have hit her. In the state of Arizona a pedestrian has right of way in front of any vehicle, and the driver must yield to any pedestrian on the same side of the road. Edited to add: We don't know anything about her physical or mental condition that might have made it difficult for her to perceive the car or the distance when she was crossing, so to assume that she had perfect perception and chose to cross in front anyway assumes facts not in evidence.
- dbt00 9y ago
  Coming back to this, I was wrong about the details of Arizona law. They require pedestrians to yield to drivers outside of crosswalks, marked or unmarked. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00793.htm https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00793.htm However, I still think Uber violated 28-794.1 and .3. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall: 1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway. 2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary. 3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00794.htm https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00794.htm