3 ms·

> human drivers...dramatically increases the danger I know you're putting a gradual transition into context, but I see you say this ^, and my reaction is to su

• amirhirsch 7y ago
  I am so down for a car-less city
• dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Having traffic be predictable is far more important than the specific rules it follows. Human driven traffic follows rules, including a massive context specific set of rules about when it is reasonable to break the written rules. Drivers that adhere to the letter of the laws and totally disregarding the unwritten rules make terrible drivers because they do not follow the full set of rules that the majority of human drivers follow. All current autonomous cars drive like this. A small but infuriating subset of human drivers behave like this too. Generally it's expected that you pass these obstructions when possible and safe enough to do so (legal or not, though what's safe is usually legal too). What people consider safe varies somewhat between people. Anyone will pass a tractor on a country two lane. Only the most bold will pass a Cruise in traffic. Of course there's a danger zone around it. The current system is designed for humans and if we're ever going to automate it the autonomous cars need to be able to coexist with the human cars without causing problems. Boys will be boys isn't an excuse because it doesn't need to be. One of the engineering requirements is to get along with the boys.
  • kalenx 7y ago
    Well I do not think the issue is about following the unwritten rules. The issue is for a company to admit "yeah we're willingly programing/training our vehicles to break the law". Sure, it might be actually less dangerous to do so, but I'm not sure their PR department will be happy about it.
    • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      I fully expect you are correct. I'm sure the engineers riding along are well aware how overly conservative they're being.
      • princeb 7y ago
        are the engineers "over-conservative"? or have human drivers become inured to what should have been considered an unacceptable amount of driving risk?
        • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
          What's "acceptable risk" is basically a matter of social consensus so anything human drivers (as a group) are ok with is de-facto acceptable. I think the engineers know the software drives un-humanly but they can't change it because driving like a dick within the letter of the law results in far less legal liability than driving like a human and breaking the law.
  • ebg13 7y ago
    > Human driven traffic follows rules This is wishful thinking and clearly false. If it were true, there wouldn't be any at-fault crashes. The only accurate claim you can make is "human traffic sometimes follows rules, and the rules that it sometimes follows change regularly from person to person and moment to moment". That's not a defensible state. Implicit in your mistaken description is a pretense that humans are psychic and that we can predict what other people will do, but we aren't and, despite believing otherwise, we can't. That's why defensive driving is so important.
    • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >This is wishful thinking and clearly false No it's not, but you'll likely never see it that way let alone admit you're wrong on the internet. >If it were true, there wouldn't be any at-fault crashes. Computers follow rules perfectly 100% of the time yet we still have software bugs. >The only accurate claim you can make is "human traffic sometimes follows rules, and the rules that it sometimes follows change regularly from person to person and moment to moment". You understand rules to be flexible and subject to some interpretation (like laws, not like a firewall config). Context is important. The rules that govern human interaction are complex. >That's not a defensible state This comment proves otherwise. >Implicit in your mistaken description is a pretense that humans are psychic and that we can predict what other people will do, but we aren't and, despite believing otherwise, we can't Humans don't need to be psychics to accurately predict what other drives will do. Humans are really good at pattern identification and picking up on subtle cues. >That's why defensive driving is so important. Being able to make accurate predictions of the future state of what is around you based on the current and past state of what is around you is far more helpful than defensiveness for any amount of defensiveness. The behavior by AI vehicles fielded by Cruise and similar is a glaring example of that while defensiveness is great at avoiding liability it does not necessarily make the road around you safer (maybe even worse, as many comments anecdotally point out). This is the main gripe people have with AI and human driven vehicles that practice defensive driving to the point of absurdity. Defensive driving without human level ability to predict what other traffic will do is not sufficient for the kinds of situations that are regularly encountered in urban areas. Most people will never get in a car crash in their entire lives (bumping into an object in a parking lot notwithstanding). I think that speaks for itself.