3 ms·
I would generally prefer smarter (more error prone) systems to be surrounded by dumber systems. So the break pedal overrides everything, then you'd have a run o
by Phrodo_00 8y ago
I would generally prefer smarter (more error prone) systems to be surrounded by dumber systems. So the break pedal overrides everything, then you'd have a run of the mill radar breaking system, regular lane following system, and only after that (and maybe even further back) the more advanced self driving-ish stuff. It's weird that it isn't designed that way, since that's the way automated systems in factories and the like are setup.
- joe_the_user 8y agoSo the break pedal overrides everything, then you'd have a run of the mill radar breaking system, regular lane following system, and only after that (and maybe even further back) the more advanced self driving-ish stuff The problem the article points out is that there's no safe, dumb response to radar seeing something stopped right in front of a car going 70 mpg. If anything, the systems the article describes are a lot like what you describe - a bunch of semi-separate systems each of which can do something if it can be sure that something is safe and which do nothing otherwise. The problem seems to be that given enough no-easy-answer situations, you wind-up with a false sense of security.
- jstarfish 8y agoWhy does "in case of anomaly or ambiguity, slow the fuck down, gather more data and reassess" never seem to be part of the functional logic with these things?
- other_herbert 8y agoI think it's because at this point they would not be able to move forward at all...