5 ms·

> “Improving public safety has always been the emphasis of Arizona’s approach to autonomous vehicle testing, and my expectation is that public safety is also th

by kosei 9y ago

> “Improving public safety has always been the emphasis of Arizona’s approach to autonomous vehicle testing, and my expectation is that public safety is also the top priority for all who operate this technology in the state of Arizona,” Mr. Ducey said in his letter. “The incident that took place on March 18 is an unquestionable failure to comply with this expectation.” This after the police claimed no fault.[1] Not quite sure how those two statements square... [1] http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/ http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/

galdosdi 9y ago
Two different and unrelated agencies and levels of government with different incentives. The state has strong precedence over local authorities though, so whatever some garbage local keystone kops have to say is kind of irrelevant here. Local coppers are known in general to have a bias in favor of motorists for obvious reasons...
shakna 9y ago
The investigation isn't complete, but Uber did disable the car's own safety features [0]. Both Volvo and Intel tested their software against the low-grade video that was released, and it was able to detect the impending accident and reduce the impact to where the pedestrian would likely have survived. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disabled-volvo-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disa...
- icebraining 9y ago
  Uber did disable the car's own safety features Well, of course they did. Can you imagine testing a self-driving system when another system is also controlling the car? What happens when they send contradictory commands? Race conditions are bad enough outside of actual cars!
  - rimliu 9y ago
    The should ditch the human out of the care too. What happens if it gives contradictory command? More seriously, as it was already pointed out elsewhere: Human > car safety features > AI. So it is pretty clear what to do when the car wants to engage emergency braking.
  - shakna 9y ago
    They disabled a system we know works, for one that failed. No redundancy. If that is the case, then Uber can absolutely be held accountable for not taking enough safety precautions. These aren't just test cars. Uber and Volvo's deal was around Uber selling 'enhanced' XC90s. Why not design around the product you purchased? > Can you imagine testing a self-driving system when another system is also controlling the car? You mean external forces such as a driver? Which is expected and required at this point?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I don't pretend to be an expert, but generally adding multiple layers of control on the same axis adds its own failure points. Having a human that can override the automatic system is not an argument for leaving that enabled - it's an argument against it! Personally, I think Uber simply shouldn't have tested it on public roads at this point.
      - shakna 9y ago
        > generally adding multiple layers of control on the same axis They wouldn't be. Subsumption architecture is the usual method to couple these things together, since the 80s. Individual reactionary modules, that may be 'dumb', like the AutoBreak, that have a hierarchy of response. Redundancy is essential for safety.
        icebraining 9y ago
        OK, let's say the Volvo system gets precedence. How will the Uber system ever learn how to behave when the Volvo system is no longer in place? If we were talking about a production system, I would agree, but I don't think this is appropriate for the training phase. Redundancy is only essential if the potential for failure is unacceptable. If you remove that (by not driving in public streets), it isn't.

by kosei 9y ago

galdosdi 9y ago

Two different and unrelated agencies and levels of government with different incentives. The state has strong precedence over local authorities though, so whatever some garbage local keystone kops have to say is kind of irrelevant here. Local coppers are known in general to have a bias in favor of motorists for obvious reasons...

shakna 9y ago

The investigation isn't complete, but Uber did disable the car's own safety features [0]. Both Volvo and Intel tested their software against the low-grade video that was released, and it was able to detect the impending accident and reduce the impact to where the pedestrian would likely have survived. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disabled-volvo-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disa...

icebraining 9y ago
Uber did disable the car's own safety features Well, of course they did. Can you imagine testing a self-driving system when another system is also controlling the car? What happens when they send contradictory commands? Race conditions are bad enough outside of actual cars!
- rimliu 9y ago
  The should ditch the human out of the care too. What happens if it gives contradictory command? More seriously, as it was already pointed out elsewhere: Human > car safety features > AI. So it is pretty clear what to do when the car wants to engage emergency braking.
- shakna 9y ago
  They disabled a system we know works, for one that failed. No redundancy. If that is the case, then Uber can absolutely be held accountable for not taking enough safety precautions. These aren't just test cars. Uber and Volvo's deal was around Uber selling 'enhanced' XC90s. Why not design around the product you purchased? > Can you imagine testing a self-driving system when another system is also controlling the car? You mean external forces such as a driver? Which is expected and required at this point?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I don't pretend to be an expert, but generally adding multiple layers of control on the same axis adds its own failure points. Having a human that can override the automatic system is not an argument for leaving that enabled - it's an argument against it! Personally, I think Uber simply shouldn't have tested it on public roads at this point.
    - shakna 9y ago
      > generally adding multiple layers of control on the same axis They wouldn't be. Subsumption architecture is the usual method to couple these things together, since the 80s. Individual reactionary modules, that may be 'dumb', like the AutoBreak, that have a hierarchy of response. Redundancy is essential for safety.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        OK, let's say the Volvo system gets precedence. How will the Uber system ever learn how to behave when the Volvo system is no longer in place? If we were talking about a production system, I would agree, but I don't think this is appropriate for the training phase. Redundancy is only essential if the potential for failure is unacceptable. If you remove that (by not driving in public streets), it isn't.