4 ms·

"A human paying attention assisted by a computer paying attention is always going to be safer than either separately." No. Stating something as a fact without

"A human paying attention assisted by a computer paying attention is always going to be safer than either separately." No. Stating something as a fact without analyzing it in the slightest is bad. Example: (1) Only a computer is "paying attention" performing the "assisted emergency breaking" role. The computer has an effective reaction time of 1/100 of a second. Within 2/100 of a second of a qualifying event, the vehicle will be in full antilock brake mode. (2) A human and a computer are "paying attention" performing the "assisted emergency breaking" role (this is a little silly in that the human is already the primary brake operator...). The computer still has 1/100 s reaction time, but the human's reaction time is 25/100 s. What exactly is the human bringing to the table? It is true that the human may detect an actual threat the computer doesn't...however that slow reaction time means it likely won't make a difference in the outcome. On the other hand, the human may "detect" a false alarm, and emergency brake by mistake. That activity often leads to wrecks! I submit that the computer-only emergency brake assist is safer than the combination of human and computer. Further, all of these "human in the loop" systems suffer from a fatal flaw - the inability of people to pay attention unless it's absolutely crucial. The way people use Tesla Autopilot shows that full autonomy is necessary, and will in fact be safer than any "assisted" system.

FabHK 7y ago
Presumably, GP means as a whole, confronted with the entire array of challenges, not for a single simple task at which the computer happens to be unambiguously better.
tomatocracy 7y ago
The human can often predict that some type of avoidance will be needed several seconds earlier in a way that computers can't at the moment and thus avert the need for emergency braking entirely. The two can, and should, be complementary.
- Recurecur 7y ago
  "The human can often predict that some type of avoidance will be needed several seconds earlier in a way that computers can't at the moment and thus avert the need for emergency braking entirely. The two can, and should, be complementary." What you're saying is true, but doesn't fall under the purview of "assisted emergency braking".
  - notahacker 7y ago
    But AEB as a fallback for when humans fail to anticipate the hazard well enough to avoid the need for emergency braking altogether falls very much under the purview of the OP's statement that "a human paying attention assisted by a computer paying attention" is the safest option.
    - Recurecur 7y ago
      Sure, but that isn't the discussion at hand. That's overall autonomous driving, and in that case, the computer would ideally be anticipating hazards like a human would - only better. You know, not driving tired, drunk, high, angry, or stupid...
vageli 7y ago
> "A human paying attention assisted by a computer paying attention is always going to be safer than either separately." > No. Stating something as a fact without analyzing it in the slightest is bad. > Example: > (1) Only a computer is "paying attention" performing the "assisted emergency breaking" role. The computer has an effective reaction time of 1/100 of a second. Within 2/100 of a second of a qualifying event, the vehicle will be in full antilock brake mode. > (2) A human and a computer are "paying attention" performing the "assisted emergency breaking" role (this is a little silly in that the human is already the primary brake operator...). The computer still has 1/100 s reaction time, but the human's reaction time is 25/100 s. What exactly is the human bringing to the table? It is true that the human may detect an actual threat the computer doesn't...however that slow reaction time means it likely won't make a difference in the outcome. On the other hand, the human may "detect" a false alarm, and emergency brake by mistake. That activity often leads to wrecks! > I submit that the computer-only emergency brake assist is safer than the combination of human and computer. Further, all of these "human in the loop" systems suffer from a fatal flaw - the inability of people to pay attention unless it's absolutely crucial. > The way people use Tesla Autopilot shows that full autonomy is necessary, and will in fact be safer than any "assisted" system. I think your example is uncharitable because you allow for a human to react to a false alarm in the second but don't account for a computer to react similarly in the first. Personally speaking, I have seen very few occasions of people exercising extreme braking wrongly. I feel computers would be less apt at discerning from a false positive than a human operator with even a little experience behind the wheel. Given that autonomous cars can be misled by painting roadways certain ways [0], it's clear to me that the number of unknown unknowns that must be handled by a car are large in number, and I have less faith in the skillful handling of those events by a computer than a human. [0]: https://nerdist.com/article/trap-a-self-driving-car/ https://nerdist.com/article/trap-a-self-driving-car/
- melkiaur 7y ago
  > What exactly is the human bringing to the table? He can see the big truck 200 yards in front of him, and recognize that it is indeed a truck, and not an overhead traffic sign. Apparently, Teslas don't bring that to the table. Alternatively, the human could recognize that the truck is on fire and smoking, and that it would be a good idea to stay away from it.
radcon 7y ago
> I submit that the computer-only emergency brake assist is safer than the combination of human and computer You're choosing to ignore the fact that computers still make mistakes. My friend's car (an Acura) recently slammed on the brakes @ 70mph because it mistakenly thought a car in an adjacent lane was in his lane. Had there been someone following close behind him, it probably would've caused an accident. This is not an uncommon occurrence, especially with Honda/Acura's system. You can find tons of complaints online about AEB systems reacting to false positives.
- Recurecur 7y ago
  "You're choosing to ignore the fact that computers still make mistakes." No, but I'll unequivocally assert that the human false alarm rate is much higher than that of computers. "My friend's car (an Acura) recently slammed on the brakes @ 70mph because it mistakenly thought a car in an adjacent lane was in his lane. Had there been someone following close behind him, it probably would've caused an accident." Does it have a readout indicating what it "thought"? It seems possible that the car in the other lane drifted, and the computer thought it was changing lanes into the Acura. Braking was appropriate in that circumstance. "This is not an uncommon occurrence, especially with Honda/Acura's system. You can find tons of complaints online about AEB systems reacting to false positives." That may be, and I suspect a fix will be forthcoming which will address every Honda/Acura on the road (or new models, worst case). Meanwhile, humans will continue to look down at a text, hamburger, or whatever, and then panic when a few seconds later they look up and think they're in trouble. Not to mention driving tired, drunk, high, angry, or stupid.
- Recurecur 7y ago
  BTW, I did mean to make one more point regarding: "Had there been someone following close behind him, it probably would've caused an accident." And of course the person running into the braking vehicle would have been at fault. In most cases, only assisted emergency braking would help, since most people follow way too close on the freeway - human reaction time isn't fast enough.
pjc50 7y ago
> The computer has an effective reaction time of 1/100 of a second. .. to objects that it can identify as a hazard. We've already seen incidents where it fails to spot hazards such as cyclists and crash barriers, due to limitations such as having to filter out stationary objects from radar returns.
- Recurecur 7y ago
  ".. to objects that it can identify as a hazard. We've already seen incidents where it fails to spot hazards such as cyclists and crash barriers, due to limitations such as having to filter out stationary objects from radar returns." Really? I've seen no such reports with regard to assisted emergency braking systems. Please cite a reference.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19932918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19932918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19802284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19802284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17257239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17257239 "These vehicles will run into stationary obstacles at full speed with no warning or emergency braking at all." Anyway, the point was a general one - the computer hazard identification is very far from perfect at the moment, and benefits from a human spotting hazards that the automated system does not.
    - Recurecur 7y ago
      Those reports were WRT full autonomous driving - not "assisted emergency braking". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_brake_assist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_brake_assist I see no mention of problems on the Wikipedia page. Do you know of any?
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    One of many articles... https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/ https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/

FabHK 7y ago

Presumably, GP means as a whole, confronted with the entire array of challenges, not for a single simple task at which the computer happens to be unambiguously better.

tomatocracy 7y ago

The human can often predict that some type of avoidance will be needed several seconds earlier in a way that computers can't at the moment and thus avert the need for emergency braking entirely. The two can, and should, be complementary.

Recurecur 7y ago
"The human can often predict that some type of avoidance will be needed several seconds earlier in a way that computers can't at the moment and thus avert the need for emergency braking entirely. The two can, and should, be complementary." What you're saying is true, but doesn't fall under the purview of "assisted emergency braking".
- notahacker 7y ago
  But AEB as a fallback for when humans fail to anticipate the hazard well enough to avoid the need for emergency braking altogether falls very much under the purview of the OP's statement that "a human paying attention assisted by a computer paying attention" is the safest option.
  - Recurecur 7y ago
    Sure, but that isn't the discussion at hand. That's overall autonomous driving, and in that case, the computer would ideally be anticipating hazards like a human would - only better. You know, not driving tired, drunk, high, angry, or stupid...

vageli 7y ago

> "A human paying attention assisted by a computer paying attention is always going to be safer than either separately." > No. Stating something as a fact without analyzing it in the slightest is bad. > Example: > (1) Only a computer is "paying attention" performing the "assisted emergency breaking" role. The computer has an effective reaction time of 1/100 of a second. Within 2/100 of a second of a qualifying event, the vehicle will be in full antilock brake mode. > (2) A human and a computer are "paying attention" performing the "assisted emergency breaking" role (this is a little silly in that the human is already the primary brake operator...). The computer still has 1/100 s reaction time, but the human's reaction time is 25/100 s. What exactly is the human bringing to the table? It is true that the human may detect an actual threat the computer doesn't...however that slow reaction time means it likely won't make a difference in the outcome. On the other hand, the human may "detect" a false alarm, and emergency brake by mistake. That activity often leads to wrecks! > I submit that the computer-only emergency brake assist is safer than the combination of human and computer. Further, all of these "human in the loop" systems suffer from a fatal flaw - the inability of people to pay attention unless it's absolutely crucial. > The way people use Tesla Autopilot shows that full autonomy is necessary, and will in fact be safer than any "assisted" system. I think your example is uncharitable because you allow for a human to react to a false alarm in the second but don't account for a computer to react similarly in the first. Personally speaking, I have seen very few occasions of people exercising extreme braking wrongly. I feel computers would be less apt at discerning from a false positive than a human operator with even a little experience behind the wheel. Given that autonomous cars can be misled by painting roadways certain ways [0], it's clear to me that the number of unknown unknowns that must be handled by a car are large in number, and I have less faith in the skillful handling of those events by a computer than a human. [0]: https://nerdist.com/article/trap-a-self-driving-car/ https://nerdist.com/article/trap-a-self-driving-car/

melkiaur 7y ago
> What exactly is the human bringing to the table? He can see the big truck 200 yards in front of him, and recognize that it is indeed a truck, and not an overhead traffic sign. Apparently, Teslas don't bring that to the table. Alternatively, the human could recognize that the truck is on fire and smoking, and that it would be a good idea to stay away from it.

radcon 7y ago

> I submit that the computer-only emergency brake assist is safer than the combination of human and computer You're choosing to ignore the fact that computers still make mistakes. My friend's car (an Acura) recently slammed on the brakes @ 70mph because it mistakenly thought a car in an adjacent lane was in his lane. Had there been someone following close behind him, it probably would've caused an accident. This is not an uncommon occurrence, especially with Honda/Acura's system. You can find tons of complaints online about AEB systems reacting to false positives.

Recurecur 7y ago
"You're choosing to ignore the fact that computers still make mistakes." No, but I'll unequivocally assert that the human false alarm rate is much higher than that of computers. "My friend's car (an Acura) recently slammed on the brakes @ 70mph because it mistakenly thought a car in an adjacent lane was in his lane. Had there been someone following close behind him, it probably would've caused an accident." Does it have a readout indicating what it "thought"? It seems possible that the car in the other lane drifted, and the computer thought it was changing lanes into the Acura. Braking was appropriate in that circumstance. "This is not an uncommon occurrence, especially with Honda/Acura's system. You can find tons of complaints online about AEB systems reacting to false positives." That may be, and I suspect a fix will be forthcoming which will address every Honda/Acura on the road (or new models, worst case). Meanwhile, humans will continue to look down at a text, hamburger, or whatever, and then panic when a few seconds later they look up and think they're in trouble. Not to mention driving tired, drunk, high, angry, or stupid.
Recurecur 7y ago
BTW, I did mean to make one more point regarding: "Had there been someone following close behind him, it probably would've caused an accident." And of course the person running into the braking vehicle would have been at fault. In most cases, only assisted emergency braking would help, since most people follow way too close on the freeway - human reaction time isn't fast enough.

pjc50 7y ago

> The computer has an effective reaction time of 1/100 of a second. .. to objects that it can identify as a hazard. We've already seen incidents where it fails to spot hazards such as cyclists and crash barriers, due to limitations such as having to filter out stationary objects from radar returns.

Recurecur 7y ago
".. to objects that it can identify as a hazard. We've already seen incidents where it fails to spot hazards such as cyclists and crash barriers, due to limitations such as having to filter out stationary objects from radar returns." Really? I've seen no such reports with regard to assisted emergency braking systems. Please cite a reference.
- pjc50 7y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19932918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19932918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19802284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19802284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17257239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17257239 "These vehicles will run into stationary obstacles at full speed with no warning or emergency braking at all." Anyway, the point was a general one - the computer hazard identification is very far from perfect at the moment, and benefits from a human spotting hazards that the automated system does not.
  - Recurecur 7y ago
    Those reports were WRT full autonomous driving - not "assisted emergency braking". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_brake_assist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_brake_assist I see no mention of problems on the Wikipedia page. Do you know of any?
- alistairSH 7y ago
  One of many articles... https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/ https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/