3 ms·

1) I'll rephrase: occasionally (and needlessly) stopping for a plastic bag (or any other false positive) should not be considered a massive improvement over cur

1) I'll rephrase: occasionally (and needlessly) stopping for a plastic bag (or any other false positive) should not be considered a massive improvement over current human abilities 2) >>>you might preemptively slow down, but a properly designed system can brake a whole lot faster. >If it can't quickly recognize large moving objects I'm not questioning whether it can recognize quickly. Just whether it can ever be better/ faster than humans, taking into account cognitive ability. It's whether human (prediction-or-recognition time + reaction time + breaking time) is more or less than (AI recognition time + plus reaction time + breaking time) If AI can react and brake 2 seconds faster than a human, but doesn't recognize the threat until 4 seconds after humans can, then AI drivers will kill more people than human drivers. Which won't be fine. >being faster is a matter of adding compute power and using cameras There are other comments about the limitations of relying only on image recognition. While compute power per might improve the AI recognition time, humans still have the advantage of being able to predict instead of react. This will continue to be a major limitation for AI.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> 1) I'll rephrase: occasionally (and needlessly) stopping for a plastic bag (or any other false positive) should not be considered a massive improvement over current human abilities Okay, but I didn't say that either. I said it would be an improvement to the experience I have. I will trade an abrupt stop in front of a plastic bag for several hours of being able to do what I want while the car does the driving. > If AI can react and brake 2 seconds faster than a human, but doesn't recognize the threat until 4 seconds after humans can, then AI drivers will kill more people than human drivers. Which won't be fine. The AI processing time to recognize things in a frame needs to match the framerate, or the system is just broken. Maybe it waits for 3 frames to show the same thing before acting, that's fine. That's still faster than a human. Especially if you use a 240Hz camera, which is not very expensive. And you can and should put in enough computing power to run the 'reacting' system at the same frequency. Then once it decides to brake, instead of waiting for a foot to move it can put the virtual brake pedal at any position in under a millisecond. I can imagine a car so poorly designed that its reactions are slower than a human. But it's hard to imagine a car that's simultaneously certified for letting me take my eyes off the road, and is that broken. So I still say that a self-driving car would be able to brake quicker and harder, and it should be fine. Even without the ability to predict.
- beerandt 7y ago
  >for several hours of being able to do what I want while the car One word: Chauffeur >The AI processing time to recognize things in a frame needs to match the framerate If you're talking about framerates at all, you're still missing the point. I'm talking about human ability to predict and anticipate. The fact that a human can brake before there's anything in the frame to even detect. We've (humans) got a head start, so the speed of the AI isn't all that important.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > One word: Chauffeur But for people with normal incomes too! > brake before there's anything in the frame to even detect The scenario was slowing down a bit, but still needing to hit the brake in response to the child. So if the AI can brake faster it is extremely important.

Dylan16807 7y ago

> 1) I'll rephrase: occasionally (and needlessly) stopping for a plastic bag (or any other false positive) should not be considered a massive improvement over current human abilities Okay, but I didn't say that either. I said it would be an improvement to the experience I have. I will trade an abrupt stop in front of a plastic bag for several hours of being able to do what I want while the car does the driving. > If AI can react and brake 2 seconds faster than a human, but doesn't recognize the threat until 4 seconds after humans can, then AI drivers will kill more people than human drivers. Which won't be fine. The AI processing time to recognize things in a frame needs to match the framerate, or the system is just broken. Maybe it waits for 3 frames to show the same thing before acting, that's fine. That's still faster than a human. Especially if you use a 240Hz camera, which is not very expensive. And you can and should put in enough computing power to run the 'reacting' system at the same frequency. Then once it decides to brake, instead of waiting for a foot to move it can put the virtual brake pedal at any position in under a millisecond. I can imagine a car so poorly designed that its reactions are slower than a human. But it's hard to imagine a car that's simultaneously certified for letting me take my eyes off the road, and is that broken. So I still say that a self-driving car would be able to brake quicker and harder, and it should be fine. Even without the ability to predict.

beerandt 7y ago
>for several hours of being able to do what I want while the car One word: Chauffeur >The AI processing time to recognize things in a frame needs to match the framerate If you're talking about framerates at all, you're still missing the point. I'm talking about human ability to predict and anticipate. The fact that a human can brake before there's anything in the frame to even detect. We've (humans) got a head start, so the speed of the AI isn't all that important.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > One word: Chauffeur But for people with normal incomes too! > brake before there's anything in the frame to even detect The scenario was slowing down a bit, but still needing to hit the brake in response to the child. So if the AI can brake faster it is extremely important.