3 ms·

Only yesterday there was this discussion [1], in which the general consensus was that the safe way to do things is to put the 'smart' goal-oriented driving stuf

Only yesterday there was this discussion [1], in which the general consensus was that the safe way to do things is to put the 'smart' goal-oriented driving stuff on top of the 'dumber-but-reliable' technology to handle specific dangers. It is the latter that has produced most of the statistical evidence justifying the claim that automation makes us safer. I am very skeptical of your claim that this is a less safe way of doing things. There is, in fact, communication between the two systems: the safety system 'says' to the driving system, "no you don't", and that should not be up for negotiation any more than it is when a human is driving. As was pointed out in the other discussion, if the driving system cannot find a way to work within the restrictions of the safety systems, it is doing it wrong. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16681611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16681611

dharmab 9y ago
You could also record the decisions of the self-driving system and replay the scenario in a simulation environment (either virtual or closed course). Keep the stock safety features on for public roads and still get useful data.
thrownblown 9y ago
Isn't this how the human control systems are? Without reading the referenced convo, I can see many parallels. Like we have reflexes that we don't have full control over, that often don't even interact with our brain but rather are initiated from the spinal cord, which I would classify as dumb in this instance. And layered on top are emotional responses, memories and finally consiousness as, arguably, the control layer.
kelnos 9y ago
Having a dumber system underneath the smarter system is a great idea. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against having two separate systems that are unrelated and are built (likely) without a deep understanding of how the other behaves. Uber themselves should have a dumber system built underneath the smarter system (and maybe they do!); that way they understand all the variables that govern the operation of both and can be reasonably sure that the two systems won't fight each other. They can also build an interlock that causes the smarter system to completely disengage if the dumber system has to take over. I of course don't know this for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if Uber doesn't and can't have a complete understanding of how the Volvo system works. Disabling it makes sense. Again, they should replace it with their own dumber system, but that's a separate issue.

dharmab 9y ago

You could also record the decisions of the self-driving system and replay the scenario in a simulation environment (either virtual or closed course). Keep the stock safety features on for public roads and still get useful data.

thrownblown 9y ago

Isn't this how the human control systems are? Without reading the referenced convo, I can see many parallels. Like we have reflexes that we don't have full control over, that often don't even interact with our brain but rather are initiated from the spinal cord, which I would classify as dumb in this instance. And layered on top are emotional responses, memories and finally consiousness as, arguably, the control layer.

kelnos 9y ago

Having a dumber system underneath the smarter system is a great idea. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against having two separate systems that are unrelated and are built (likely) without a deep understanding of how the other behaves. Uber themselves should have a dumber system built underneath the smarter system (and maybe they do!); that way they understand all the variables that govern the operation of both and can be reasonably sure that the two systems won't fight each other. They can also build an interlock that causes the smarter system to completely disengage if the dumber system has to take over. I of course don't know this for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if Uber doesn't and can't have a complete understanding of how the Volvo system works. Disabling it makes sense. Again, they should replace it with their own dumber system, but that's a separate issue.