3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThis 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 agoOnly 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?"