3 ms·

>The arguments that because humans can do it with two eyes any approach using more than cameras is wrong frustrate me to no end. Technology and engineering isn'

by xoa 8y ago

>The arguments that because humans can do it with two eyes any approach using more than cameras is wrong frustrate me to no end. Technology and engineering isn't about imagining the minimum theoretical requirements, it's about building stuff that works with what is available. People can navigate cross country without gps, but it's not wrong to put gps in cars. At least as important, and something that comes up shockingly little as well (I don't see any responses to you yet on it here even!), is that overall humans stink at driving. Like you said, arguments begin with "because humans can do it" and need to be stopped right there, because that needs a lot of qualification. "Humans can do it"... with well over 1.25 million deaths a year worldwide [1] and another 20-50 million injured/disabled. Also these stats are actually worse then they look at first glance, because it's not a uniform age distribution. A lot of young people die on the roads vs other causes of death, which represents an even bigger loss in terms of human years. Personalized arbitrary point to point mechanized transportation is so insanely valuable that it's well worth that kind of death/injury rate, or for that matter one vastly higher (as it was in previous decades before modern safety standards), but there is also no reason to use it as a benchmark for "acceptable" if the opportunity exists to do better. And in particular there is no reason to limit autonomous systems to human visual spectrum for information input. That doesn't cut it for a lot of adverse weather conditions, or even just for humans along the road or animals jumping across the road at night for that matter. A big part of the pitch shouldn't be to match humans, it should be to exceed them and by a sizable margin as well. ---- 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2018/12/07/traffic-deaths-continue-climb-worldwide-per-capita-rate-has-stabilized-who-says/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2018/12/07/tra...

pnutjam 8y ago
There's no guarantee that computers will do better. We don't have the data. They currently do worse. Some people claim that they won't make the same mistake twice, but how many times have you seen the same bug crop up after it was fixed in previous updates? I would also posit that the existing statistics provide a "good enough" floor. If a million people currently die, the software will be good enough when it has the same level of fatalities. There is no incentive to make it better, at least not in our Capitalistic system. Investments would be better spent on differentiating widgets that dazzle the occupants, not protecting non-customers outside the vehicle.
- crashedsnow 8y ago
  There are numerous new and different opportunities that emerge which create different dynamics. Insurance companies might want to invest in tech that reduces accidents because they can lower their premiums and be more competitive, for example (which btw, would be a side effect of a "capitalistic" system)
- xoa 8y ago
  >There's no guarantee that computers will do better. This seems like a fallacious argument from incredulity. There is no reason to believe that humans are the ultimate existence for navigating around multi-ton land vehicles at 20-100+ miles an hour, and there is plenty of reason not to. For computers, there will be bugs and edge cases, but there are plenty of examples of high assurance low bug code in areas it matters. Additionally, any experience gained can be applied to the entire fleet at once. Computers have fundamentally better response times. And sensor input absolutely can better. A self-driving vehicle need not have any blind spots in 360°, and can "watch" all of that at once. No human will ever handle animals at night the way a vehicle with a FLIR could. Meanwhile we know for sure that there are whole classes of issues that simply do not exist for computers. They do not get tired. They do not use drugs. They do not get distracted by the passenger or texting (humans are awful at multi-tasking). They do not "have a bad day". They do not get angry at that "jerk" in the other lane. They will know all the rules of the and not forget. Perhaps most of importantly of all, for all these things there will not be variability within a fleet. Sure, there are very good human drivers, but there are also endless awful ones, and every single person must be trained anew and go through a high risk phase while they get experience. Not with a computer. Consistency and attention to boring details and checklists, every single time, has proven a key driver of health & safety improvements across many industries. And even all that are just a few of the first order effects, there will be second order ones too like much less incentive to put off maintenance when the car can drive itself to the service center and another can take its place. Sure there will no doubt be more obstacles along the way and it'll take a lot of time and effort. There may well be high profile screw ups, it's still humans doing the developing. But you've got a real steep hill in my opinion if you can look at all that and the casualty stats and still want to argue that computers won't ultimately be better. >There is no incentive to make it better, at least not in our Capitalistic system This is just utter bullshit though. Our capitalist system includes cost internalization in many cases, and cars are one of them. It's called insurance, and since you're required to carry it by law the fact that it didn't occur to you raises will questions in my mind about the basis of your opinions. Unlike many fields, in cars improvements in safety have a direct financial bottomline. Furthermore, self-driving will most likely enhance that, not detract it, because there the model of people giving up direct ownership and buying shares instead will become possible.

by xoa 8y ago

pnutjam 8y ago

There's no guarantee that computers will do better. We don't have the data. They currently do worse. Some people claim that they won't make the same mistake twice, but how many times have you seen the same bug crop up after it was fixed in previous updates? I would also posit that the existing statistics provide a "good enough" floor. If a million people currently die, the software will be good enough when it has the same level of fatalities. There is no incentive to make it better, at least not in our Capitalistic system. Investments would be better spent on differentiating widgets that dazzle the occupants, not protecting non-customers outside the vehicle.

crashedsnow 8y ago
There are numerous new and different opportunities that emerge which create different dynamics. Insurance companies might want to invest in tech that reduces accidents because they can lower their premiums and be more competitive, for example (which btw, would be a side effect of a "capitalistic" system)
xoa 8y ago
>There's no guarantee that computers will do better. This seems like a fallacious argument from incredulity. There is no reason to believe that humans are the ultimate existence for navigating around multi-ton land vehicles at 20-100+ miles an hour, and there is plenty of reason not to. For computers, there will be bugs and edge cases, but there are plenty of examples of high assurance low bug code in areas it matters. Additionally, any experience gained can be applied to the entire fleet at once. Computers have fundamentally better response times. And sensor input absolutely can better. A self-driving vehicle need not have any blind spots in 360°, and can "watch" all of that at once. No human will ever handle animals at night the way a vehicle with a FLIR could. Meanwhile we know for sure that there are whole classes of issues that simply do not exist for computers. They do not get tired. They do not use drugs. They do not get distracted by the passenger or texting (humans are awful at multi-tasking). They do not "have a bad day". They do not get angry at that "jerk" in the other lane. They will know all the rules of the and not forget. Perhaps most of importantly of all, for all these things there will not be variability within a fleet. Sure, there are very good human drivers, but there are also endless awful ones, and every single person must be trained anew and go through a high risk phase while they get experience. Not with a computer. Consistency and attention to boring details and checklists, every single time, has proven a key driver of health & safety improvements across many industries. And even all that are just a few of the first order effects, there will be second order ones too like much less incentive to put off maintenance when the car can drive itself to the service center and another can take its place. Sure there will no doubt be more obstacles along the way and it'll take a lot of time and effort. There may well be high profile screw ups, it's still humans doing the developing. But you've got a real steep hill in my opinion if you can look at all that and the casualty stats and still want to argue that computers won't ultimately be better. >There is no incentive to make it better, at least not in our Capitalistic system This is just utter bullshit though. Our capitalist system includes cost internalization in many cases, and cars are one of them. It's called insurance, and since you're required to carry it by law the fact that it didn't occur to you raises will questions in my mind about the basis of your opinions. Unlike many fields, in cars improvements in safety have a direct financial bottomline. Furthermore, self-driving will most likely enhance that, not detract it, because there the model of people giving up direct ownership and buying shares instead will become possible.