4 ms·

I'm not so sure. If the car was driverless then yes. But they put a human operator precisely to handle these sort of situations. They could put eye tracking sy

I'm not so sure. If the car was driverless then yes. But they put a human operator precisely to handle these sort of situations. They could put eye tracking system in place to make sure the operator pays attention! If the driver doesn't pay attention the car should slowly stop. Expecting people to always do the right thing is a recipe for disaster.

tyingq 8y ago
Eye tracking or not, I suspect humans aren't cut out well for that sort of task. At least not without some pretty specialized recurring training. Waymo is claiming things like 30,000 miles between needed interventions. Even if that's 100x higher than reality, that's hours of watching and boredom waiting for a few seconds of action.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 8y ago
> They could put eye tracking system in place to make sure the operator pays attention! If the driver doesn't pay attention the car should slowly stop. Except where normally there is a safety driver focusing on driving and an oversight passenger tasked with looking at and checking the automation's feedback, for cost reasons Uber had given both tasks to the "safety driver", forcing the driver to often stop paying attention to the road to check automation warnings & classify events.
michaelmrose 8y ago
This is exactly backwards from reasonable. Ultimately systems will require no intervention for very long periods of time punctuated by very quick precise actions that most people are terrible at in the best possible scenario but that computers will be very very good at. If you task the user with doing the right thing in 5 seconds time after thousands of hours of inactivity a sizable portion will react after the entire affair has come and gone and those are the lucky ones. The remainder will act 3 seconds into the crisis and screw everything up. What you are describing is the worst possible combination of man and machine wherein you let the machine handle the part the human could easily handle and you task the human with the part they are worst at to ensure maximum carnage.
- wnkrshm 8y ago
  I think the main problem is one of social acceptance, that we will see accidents that could easily be prevented by a human operator but at the same time drastically reduce the amount of accidents where from a human perspective, only pure luck or a reflex has saved people before.
- losvedir 8y ago
  I would agree with you if she were ostensibly paying attention and just didn't react in time. But she was watching a TV show on her phone. This is not the situation you're describing.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    As opposed to pretending to pay attention knowing attention would wander without engagement?

tyingq 8y ago

Eye tracking or not, I suspect humans aren't cut out well for that sort of task. At least not without some pretty specialized recurring training. Waymo is claiming things like 30,000 miles between needed interventions. Even if that's 100x higher than reality, that's hours of watching and boredom waiting for a few seconds of action.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

masklinn 8y ago

> They could put eye tracking system in place to make sure the operator pays attention! If the driver doesn't pay attention the car should slowly stop. Except where normally there is a safety driver focusing on driving and an oversight passenger tasked with looking at and checking the automation's feedback, for cost reasons Uber had given both tasks to the "safety driver", forcing the driver to often stop paying attention to the road to check automation warnings & classify events.

michaelmrose 8y ago

This is exactly backwards from reasonable. Ultimately systems will require no intervention for very long periods of time punctuated by very quick precise actions that most people are terrible at in the best possible scenario but that computers will be very very good at. If you task the user with doing the right thing in 5 seconds time after thousands of hours of inactivity a sizable portion will react after the entire affair has come and gone and those are the lucky ones. The remainder will act 3 seconds into the crisis and screw everything up. What you are describing is the worst possible combination of man and machine wherein you let the machine handle the part the human could easily handle and you task the human with the part they are worst at to ensure maximum carnage.

wnkrshm 8y ago
I think the main problem is one of social acceptance, that we will see accidents that could easily be prevented by a human operator but at the same time drastically reduce the amount of accidents where from a human perspective, only pure luck or a reflex has saved people before.
losvedir 8y ago
I would agree with you if she were ostensibly paying attention and just didn't react in time. But she was watching a TV show on her phone. This is not the situation you're describing.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  As opposed to pretending to pay attention knowing attention would wander without engagement?