4 ms·

If you have enough training data cars encountering “new” situations should be very rare. I don’t think it’s a deal breaker for level 5 autonomy.

by valine 7y ago

atupis 7y ago
Problem is that it is not very good pr if somebody dies or hurts badly every time cars encounter a "new" situation.
- datameta 7y ago
  Do we not already have loss of life when someone encounters a sudden unpredictable situation? We may be able to learn on the spot from new data, but an automated vehicle can react orders of magnitude more quickly.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    You have individual agents with actual intelligence that vary by skill. The human regressions are pretty well defined and correctable: impairment, fatigue, distraction, vehicle condition.
als0 7y ago
“Very rare” doesn’t cut it for modern safety standards.
- fastball 7y ago
  It does if it's a lot better than human drivers. If your new standard is safer than the existing "standard", nobody says "well actually that's not enough of an improvement".
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Sure it does. Planes crashing is very rare but it does happen.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  'Very rare' doesn't mean anything. Very rarely an asteroid falls on your head, how are you dealing with that?
dgellow 7y ago
The level 5 of autonomy is defined by the fact that the car can handle those new and extreme situations. I think that what you mention would match level 4 autonomy. For example, definitions from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-levels-0-to-5-understanding-the-differences/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-leve...: > Level 4: This is what is meant by "fully autonomous." Level 4 vehicles are "designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip." However, it's important to note that this is limited to the "operational design domain (ODD)" of the vehicle--meaning it does not cover every driving scenario. > Level 5: This refers to a fully-autonomous system that expects the vehicle's performance to equal that of a human driver, in every driving scenario--including extreme environments like dirt roads that are unlikely to be navigated by driverless vehicles in the near future.
BenoitEssiambre 7y ago
In my experience with machine learning, the last few percent of weird cases are exponentially varied and change over time so are always new. You hit a performance wall at a certain level. Researchers have been driven mad by this wall. See for example https://www.wired.com/2008/01/ff-aimystery/ https://www.wired.com/2008/01/ff-aimystery/ For cars, behaving dangerously just 0.1% of the time is way too much. A good AI should have really good 'one shot' deduction capability not just work by induction using tons of data. I don't think the current crop of algorithms are there yet.
- LameRubberDucky 7y ago
  Even humans have difficulty dealing with weird cases. Car accidents happen for many reasons, including the driver being unable to process the incoming information in the given time. One of my pet peeves is the lack of raised markings (Botts' dots or other types) on highways. With the right combination of wet streets and lighting, all of the lines on a roadway can seem to disappear. A machine with different sensors may actually be able to detect the lines better than a human could in this particular situation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

If you have enough training data cars encountering “new” situations should be very rare. I don’t think it’s a deal breaker for level 5 autonomy.

by valine 7y ago

If you have enough training data cars encountering “new” situations should be very rare. I don’t think it’s a deal breaker for level 5 autonomy.

atupis 7y ago

Problem is that it is not very good pr if somebody dies or hurts badly every time cars encounter a "new" situation.

datameta 7y ago
Do we not already have loss of life when someone encounters a sudden unpredictable situation? We may be able to learn on the spot from new data, but an automated vehicle can react orders of magnitude more quickly.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  You have individual agents with actual intelligence that vary by skill. The human regressions are pretty well defined and correctable: impairment, fatigue, distraction, vehicle condition.

als0 7y ago

“Very rare” doesn’t cut it for modern safety standards.

fastball 7y ago
It does if it's a lot better than human drivers. If your new standard is safer than the existing "standard", nobody says "well actually that's not enough of an improvement".
umanwizard 7y ago
Sure it does. Planes crashing is very rare but it does happen.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
'Very rare' doesn't mean anything. Very rarely an asteroid falls on your head, how are you dealing with that?

dgellow 7y ago

The level 5 of autonomy is defined by the fact that the car can handle those new and extreme situations. I think that what you mention would match level 4 autonomy. For example, definitions from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-levels-0-to-5-understanding-the-differences/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-leve...: > Level 4: This is what is meant by "fully autonomous." Level 4 vehicles are "designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip." However, it's important to note that this is limited to the "operational design domain (ODD)" of the vehicle--meaning it does not cover every driving scenario. > Level 5: This refers to a fully-autonomous system that expects the vehicle's performance to equal that of a human driver, in every driving scenario--including extreme environments like dirt roads that are unlikely to be navigated by driverless vehicles in the near future.

BenoitEssiambre 7y ago

In my experience with machine learning, the last few percent of weird cases are exponentially varied and change over time so are always new. You hit a performance wall at a certain level. Researchers have been driven mad by this wall. See for example https://www.wired.com/2008/01/ff-aimystery/ https://www.wired.com/2008/01/ff-aimystery/ For cars, behaving dangerously just 0.1% of the time is way too much. A good AI should have really good 'one shot' deduction capability not just work by induction using tons of data. I don't think the current crop of algorithms are there yet.

LameRubberDucky 7y ago
Even humans have difficulty dealing with weird cases. Car accidents happen for many reasons, including the driver being unable to process the incoming information in the given time. One of my pet peeves is the lack of raised markings (Botts' dots or other types) on highways. With the right combination of wet streets and lighting, all of the lines on a roadway can seem to disappear. A machine with different sensors may actually be able to detect the lines better than a human could in this particular situation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]