7 ms·

Nissan's Path to Self-Driving Cars? Humans in Call Centers

57 points by hliyan 9y ago

trebligdivad 9y ago
It makes a lot of sense to me, we're way off an AI being able to cope with random construction sites. But then it does have to be able to cope with out comms, for example there was a recent self-driving truck case where the truck came to a stop because the remote office had just lost power - that would be a mess if there were thousands on the streets.
- username223 9y ago
  > we're way off an AI being able to cope with random construction sites. And this is why level 5 autonomous cars are basically strong AI: current roads assume that a human controls every vehicle. When some guys want to unload a truck full of bricks, they park, turn on the flashers, and wave traffic through in alternating directions. Humans understand this, but good luck teaching a robot. The Nissan solution of having the robot freak out for 30 seconds before a remote operator moves it out of the way is better than nothing, but hardly great.
  - hliyan 9y ago
    This just gave me a thought. What if the onboard self-driving system doesn't really need the teleoperator to take over completely, but to select from a set of decisions in difficult situations? The teleoperator doesn't need to watch the footage continuously, but only needs to respond quickly when the onboard system generates an alert.
    - notahacker 9y ago
      Only a subset of decisions (can I proceed as normal) are easily dealt with as yes/no answers. "How do I proceed through this environment which is playing havoc with my sensors?" is less straightforward. Of course, there's a big class of problems which can't be dealt with by remote takeover at all, such as "should I hit this unclassified small obstruction that's entered the roadway or brake/swerve in a manner almost certain to result in a collision?"
TillE 9y ago
This is the obvious stopgap measure so you can get to market when your self-driving software is very very good but not quite perfect. You use the data from these situations to improve the software, requiring fewer and fewer manual interventions until you only need human assistance in truly exceptional situations like physical damage to the sensors. I wouldn't be surprised to see an almost-entirely-self-driving car service in certain areas in the nearish future. As long as it's 100% safe and only requires assistance rarely, it makes sense to start building out the infrastructure sooner rather than later.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  Level 4 self-driving seems the second-least desirable after Level 0, as it's entirely passive but requires full active attention. It's a ripe situation for distraction, something Tesla cars attempt to combat with the "wheel-squeeze". From a cynical perspective, it's easy to see a future where we constantly approach, but never quite reach, full Level 5 autonomy - or at least not with existing technology. Maybe Level 5 will prove to be an NP problem. Marketing teams are likely going to promote terms like "Level 4.1 self-driving" or "Level 4.5 self-driving" or "Level 4.9 self-driving", as edge-cases are slowly resolved.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    Or regulators step in after too many inattentive human drivers fail to prevent very avoidable Level 4 accidents, and we end up with Level 2 driving with Level 5 parking capability permitted only on specific private properties.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Nah, that's Level 3. "Level 4 ("mind off"): As level 3, but no driver attention is ever required for safety, i.e. the driver may safely go to sleep or leave the driver's seat." Level 4 is like a Level 5, but that doesn't let you enable it for every route (e.g. you might be manually driving until the highway, then enable self-driving and go to sleep, then wake up with it parked right after the exit you chosen).
  - 9y ago
stephengillie 9y ago
Having rented a 2017 Altima last summer, and finding it to have only non-adaptive cruise control, I'm somewhat surprised to see an article on Nissan cars having self-driving capabilities. From another article[0], Adaptive Cruise, Lane Assist, and Automated Braking (ACLAAB) are set to launch in the 2019 Leaf. But the article makes it clear that these in no way make the car autonomous, and the driver must constantly be ready to engage. Instead of using a "wheel-squeeze" like Tesla, Nissan's car uses steering wheel torque data to tell if you're holding the wheel. Combining the two, it sounds like their system is ACLAAB that comes to a full stop and "phones home" when it gets confused. But how often will it get confused? Will it be better than the self-check bag sensor detecting your reusable bag correctly? And how long will it take someone in their call center to "pick up their phone call" and remotely drive the car? This might be an acceptable situation for driving elderly people to the grocery store. But it's going to cause a great deal of frustration for other drivers - having to deal with cars that stop at random spots on the street or highway - and sit there for up to a minute as someone remotes in to drive. [0] http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/07/nissan-propilot-assist-takes-adaptive-cruise-control-to-the-next-level.html http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/07/nissan-propilot-a...
- kyriakos 9y ago
  I'm surprised cause my 2 year old nissan has the features you mentioned
- jpindar 9y ago
  "Your trip is very important to us. Please hold."
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > it sounds like their system is ACLAAB that comes to a full stop and "phones home" when it gets confused. I can see a lot of rear-ended Nissan cars in my crystal ball.
- kalleboo 9y ago
  I thought Tesla also used wheel torque data? https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/how-does-autopilot-sense-hands-on-wheel.75905/ https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/how-does-autopilot-s... > One method is to detect torque on the steering wheel, hinted Musk. “So we might issue a visual and auditory alert to make sure you’re okay.”
ceejayoz 9y ago
I think I find the prospect of a random call center employee being able to commandeer my vehicle more concerning than AI screwups.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >I think I find the prospect of a random call center employee being able to commandeer my vehicle more concerning than AI screwups. Whether the commands are given by an AI or a call center employee, I would additionally highlight the "remote" part (please read as "over a possiby flaky GSM or satellite connection that can have an hiccup at any time).
  - 21 9y ago
    The way the article (and pictures) describes it, the car will receive a full instruction package before starting to execute it. And all regular systems (collision avoidance, ...) will presumably still be active.
    - jaclaz 9y ago
      >The way the article (and pictures) describes it, the car will receive a full instruction package before starting to execute it. And all regular systems (collision avoidance, ...) will presumably still be active Will receive the "full instruction package" IF the connection works at the needed time or however before it is needed. The approach could be very good for whatever you have time for AND that is not "vital", just as an example to correct a navigation plan, but for something in an "emergency" the reliability of the connection at the right time needs to be taken into account.
- Theodores 9y ago
  You probably think the same about fixing your desktop computing problems, however, lots of people are happy for someone to dial in and fix the machine for them. This is effectively what Nissan will be doing, having tech support that can dial in and do things in superuser mode - remember we won't have steering wheels soon. The thing is that here may be a small team that send the same fixes to cars all day whilst some complicated roadworks or an event happens.
dogruck 9y ago
This idea will never work. Putting aside all other reasons — the liability equation doesn’t make sense. Imagine being a lowly “meat bag” in the call center. You’re presented with an endless stream of situations so difficult that the robot can’t solve. Eventually, you make a mistake, and people die. Checkmate.
- mistercow 9y ago
  Driving scenarios that are difficult for both humans and AI are rare. It's not that these are situations "so difficult that the robot can't solve"; it's that they're edge cases the AI isn't designed for. The vast majority of these situations will be absolutely trivial for a human operator, and only "difficult" for the AI because the designers haven't accounted for this 0.01% case yet.
- burger_moon 9y ago
  Sounds like 9-1-1 operators. I'm sure there's a way to make it work, but it won't happen over night and unfortunately most processes are the result of learning from mistakes which in this context are potentially life threatening.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    Seems different than 9-1-1 operators, who are responsible for passing information to first responders. These autonomous car operators would make decisions such as “go ahead and ignore the construction cones.” They won’t simply say, “okay, I’ll send a police crew out to the intersection to triage the confusing construction cones.”
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
I'm trying to articulate how pointless this sounds. First, you create some AI system that's supposed to help take the human out of the loop in order to improve safety (allegedly). You realise there are still situations your AI can't handle. You decide to give control to a human outside the car, in a call centre. So now the human brain is back in control, except it's not the human in the car (presumably, there is a human in the car?), but someone completely different. So you have to spend the resources to develop self-driving technology and to maintain a stable of remote drivers. And all that- for what? Human brains are still in control of cars and car AI is still dumb as bricks often enough to make them less safe than humans. If you had problems with humans forced to jump in and take control at a moment's notice where the car failed, before, now you're making these problems even worse by having someone take control remotely so that they're even less aware of the unfolding situation than the human in the car. It's just ...pointless. It makes even less sense than a car that drives itself safely only when you're paying attention (hey, I can kill myself when I'm not paying attention just fine on my own, I don't need an AI car to do that).
- josephpmay 9y ago
  The point is that you would only need this .01% of the time, and in everyday driving, the autonomous vehicle would be safer than a human
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    Where is that "0.01% of the time" coming from? And what about the claim that the rest of the time the self-driving car is safer than a human? How do we know that self-driving cars are safer than cars driven by a human?
tcmb 9y ago
The current problem, as mentioned in the article, is that signage for exceptional situations is made good enough for human drivers, but not for self-driving cars. When self-driving cars become more prevalent, couldn't we have standardized signage that allows the cars to deal with exceptional road conditions like the example in the article? Agreeing on industry-wide standards (insert relevant xkcd link here) can make such situations solvable for the machine, by employing well-recognizable clues that signify, for example, 'ignore red light and drive on opposite side of the street'.
Aspyre 9y ago
Why was this article resurrected from Jan 2017? What makes this relevant now?
scottmcdot 9y ago
I might be missing something, but why wouldn't the passengers step in and override the car? Is this assuming the car is unmanned?

57 points by hliyan 9y ago

It makes a lot of sense to me, we're way off an AI being able to cope with random construction sites. But then it does have to be able to cope with out comms, for example there was a recent self-driving truck case where the truck came to a stop because the remote office had just lost power - that would be a mess if there were thousands on the streets.

username223 9y ago
> we're way off an AI being able to cope with random construction sites. And this is why level 5 autonomous cars are basically strong AI: current roads assume that a human controls every vehicle. When some guys want to unload a truck full of bricks, they park, turn on the flashers, and wave traffic through in alternating directions. Humans understand this, but good luck teaching a robot. The Nissan solution of having the robot freak out for 30 seconds before a remote operator moves it out of the way is better than nothing, but hardly great.
- hliyan 9y ago
  This just gave me a thought. What if the onboard self-driving system doesn't really need the teleoperator to take over completely, but to select from a set of decisions in difficult situations? The teleoperator doesn't need to watch the footage continuously, but only needs to respond quickly when the onboard system generates an alert.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    Only a subset of decisions (can I proceed as normal) are easily dealt with as yes/no answers. "How do I proceed through this environment which is playing havoc with my sensors?" is less straightforward. Of course, there's a big class of problems which can't be dealt with by remote takeover at all, such as "should I hit this unclassified small obstruction that's entered the roadway or brake/swerve in a manner almost certain to result in a collision?"

TillE 9y ago

This is the obvious stopgap measure so you can get to market when your self-driving software is very very good but not quite perfect. You use the data from these situations to improve the software, requiring fewer and fewer manual interventions until you only need human assistance in truly exceptional situations like physical damage to the sensors. I wouldn't be surprised to see an almost-entirely-self-driving car service in certain areas in the nearish future. As long as it's 100% safe and only requires assistance rarely, it makes sense to start building out the infrastructure sooner rather than later.

stephengillie 9y ago
Level 4 self-driving seems the second-least desirable after Level 0, as it's entirely passive but requires full active attention. It's a ripe situation for distraction, something Tesla cars attempt to combat with the "wheel-squeeze". From a cynical perspective, it's easy to see a future where we constantly approach, but never quite reach, full Level 5 autonomy - or at least not with existing technology. Maybe Level 5 will prove to be an NP problem. Marketing teams are likely going to promote terms like "Level 4.1 self-driving" or "Level 4.5 self-driving" or "Level 4.9 self-driving", as edge-cases are slowly resolved.
- notahacker 9y ago
  Or regulators step in after too many inattentive human drivers fail to prevent very avoidable Level 4 accidents, and we end up with Level 2 driving with Level 5 parking capability permitted only on specific private properties.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Nah, that's Level 3. "Level 4 ("mind off"): As level 3, but no driver attention is ever required for safety, i.e. the driver may safely go to sleep or leave the driver's seat." Level 4 is like a Level 5, but that doesn't let you enable it for every route (e.g. you might be manually driving until the highway, then enable self-driving and go to sleep, then wake up with it parked right after the exit you chosen).
- 9y ago

stephengillie 9y ago

Having rented a 2017 Altima last summer, and finding it to have only non-adaptive cruise control, I'm somewhat surprised to see an article on Nissan cars having self-driving capabilities. From another article[0], Adaptive Cruise, Lane Assist, and Automated Braking (ACLAAB) are set to launch in the 2019 Leaf. But the article makes it clear that these in no way make the car autonomous, and the driver must constantly be ready to engage. Instead of using a "wheel-squeeze" like Tesla, Nissan's car uses steering wheel torque data to tell if you're holding the wheel. Combining the two, it sounds like their system is ACLAAB that comes to a full stop and "phones home" when it gets confused. But how often will it get confused? Will it be better than the self-check bag sensor detecting your reusable bag correctly? And how long will it take someone in their call center to "pick up their phone call" and remotely drive the car? This might be an acceptable situation for driving elderly people to the grocery store. But it's going to cause a great deal of frustration for other drivers - having to deal with cars that stop at random spots on the street or highway - and sit there for up to a minute as someone remotes in to drive. [0] http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/07/nissan-propilot-assist-takes-adaptive-cruise-control-to-the-next-level.html http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/07/nissan-propilot-a...

kyriakos 9y ago
I'm surprised cause my 2 year old nissan has the features you mentioned
jpindar 9y ago
"Your trip is very important to us. Please hold."
jacquesm 9y ago
> it sounds like their system is ACLAAB that comes to a full stop and "phones home" when it gets confused. I can see a lot of rear-ended Nissan cars in my crystal ball.
kalleboo 9y ago
I thought Tesla also used wheel torque data? https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/how-does-autopilot-sense-hands-on-wheel.75905/ https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/how-does-autopilot-s... > One method is to detect torque on the steering wheel, hinted Musk. “So we might issue a visual and auditory alert to make sure you’re okay.”

ceejayoz 9y ago

I think I find the prospect of a random call center employee being able to commandeer my vehicle more concerning than AI screwups.

jaclaz 9y ago
>I think I find the prospect of a random call center employee being able to commandeer my vehicle more concerning than AI screwups. Whether the commands are given by an AI or a call center employee, I would additionally highlight the "remote" part (please read as "over a possiby flaky GSM or satellite connection that can have an hiccup at any time).
- 21 9y ago
  The way the article (and pictures) describes it, the car will receive a full instruction package before starting to execute it. And all regular systems (collision avoidance, ...) will presumably still be active.
  - jaclaz 9y ago
    >The way the article (and pictures) describes it, the car will receive a full instruction package before starting to execute it. And all regular systems (collision avoidance, ...) will presumably still be active Will receive the "full instruction package" IF the connection works at the needed time or however before it is needed. The approach could be very good for whatever you have time for AND that is not "vital", just as an example to correct a navigation plan, but for something in an "emergency" the reliability of the connection at the right time needs to be taken into account.
Theodores 9y ago
You probably think the same about fixing your desktop computing problems, however, lots of people are happy for someone to dial in and fix the machine for them. This is effectively what Nissan will be doing, having tech support that can dial in and do things in superuser mode - remember we won't have steering wheels soon. The thing is that here may be a small team that send the same fixes to cars all day whilst some complicated roadworks or an event happens.

dogruck 9y ago

This idea will never work. Putting aside all other reasons — the liability equation doesn’t make sense. Imagine being a lowly “meat bag” in the call center. You’re presented with an endless stream of situations so difficult that the robot can’t solve. Eventually, you make a mistake, and people die. Checkmate.

mistercow 9y ago
Driving scenarios that are difficult for both humans and AI are rare. It's not that these are situations "so difficult that the robot can't solve"; it's that they're edge cases the AI isn't designed for. The vast majority of these situations will be absolutely trivial for a human operator, and only "difficult" for the AI because the designers haven't accounted for this 0.01% case yet.
burger_moon 9y ago
Sounds like 9-1-1 operators. I'm sure there's a way to make it work, but it won't happen over night and unfortunately most processes are the result of learning from mistakes which in this context are potentially life threatening.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Seems different than 9-1-1 operators, who are responsible for passing information to first responders. These autonomous car operators would make decisions such as “go ahead and ignore the construction cones.” They won’t simply say, “okay, I’ll send a police crew out to the intersection to triage the confusing construction cones.”

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

I'm trying to articulate how pointless this sounds. First, you create some AI system that's supposed to help take the human out of the loop in order to improve safety (allegedly). You realise there are still situations your AI can't handle. You decide to give control to a human outside the car, in a call centre. So now the human brain is back in control, except it's not the human in the car (presumably, there is a human in the car?), but someone completely different. So you have to spend the resources to develop self-driving technology and to maintain a stable of remote drivers. And all that- for what? Human brains are still in control of cars and car AI is still dumb as bricks often enough to make them less safe than humans. If you had problems with humans forced to jump in and take control at a moment's notice where the car failed, before, now you're making these problems even worse by having someone take control remotely so that they're even less aware of the unfolding situation than the human in the car. It's just ...pointless. It makes even less sense than a car that drives itself safely only when you're paying attention (hey, I can kill myself when I'm not paying attention just fine on my own, I don't need an AI car to do that).

josephpmay 9y ago
The point is that you would only need this .01% of the time, and in everyday driving, the autonomous vehicle would be safer than a human
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  Where is that "0.01% of the time" coming from? And what about the claim that the rest of the time the self-driving car is safer than a human? How do we know that self-driving cars are safer than cars driven by a human?

tcmb 9y ago

The current problem, as mentioned in the article, is that signage for exceptional situations is made good enough for human drivers, but not for self-driving cars. When self-driving cars become more prevalent, couldn't we have standardized signage that allows the cars to deal with exceptional road conditions like the example in the article? Agreeing on industry-wide standards (insert relevant xkcd link here) can make such situations solvable for the machine, by employing well-recognizable clues that signify, for example, 'ignore red light and drive on opposite side of the street'.

Aspyre 9y ago

Why was this article resurrected from Jan 2017? What makes this relevant now?

scottmcdot 9y ago

I might be missing something, but why wouldn't the passengers step in and override the car? Is this assuming the car is unmanned?