3 ms·
This is absolutely a fail, a woman died. The question is whether or not this incident is an example of "fails harder than most average drivers" or a hard fail.
by keanzu 7y ago
This is absolutely a fail, a woman died. The question is whether or not this incident is an example of "fails harder than most average drivers" or a hard fail.
With the sensor array available to it the car should have done better, no question.
But to make the claim "fails harder" I would be looking for a clear cut situation where a human would almost definitely have outperformed the AI.
Human eyes do have miraculous dynamic range so we would likely see more. Can we say with 90% certainty that a human would have saved the situation?
- Piskvorrr 7y ago"There's something out in front of me, an unclear shape right in my path, relatively far, 6 seconds out. I will drive straight through it instead of slowing down, because...[fill in your Voight-Kampff test response]". Well? Is that at least 90% human? Moreover, try this dashcam video: https://youtu.be/typj1asf1EM https://youtu.be/typj1asf1EM It's 10 seconds long, and makes the pedestrian look almost invisible except for the soles. However, when I took that video, both the crossing pedestrians were clearly visible, not vague shapes that you only notice when you're told they exist. So much for video feed fidelity.
- pja 7y agoCan we say with 90% certainty that a human would have saved the situation? Yes, given the misleading nature of the dashcam video I think we can. This was not a pitch dark road lit only by headlights where an obstacle "appeared out of no-where". This was a well-lit main street, with good visibility in all directions. An ordinary human driver would have had no problem identifying Elaine as a hazard and taking the appropriate avoiding action, which was simply to slow down sufficiently to allow her to cross the road. The backup driver in the car was apparently looking at their phone or some other device and not watching the road at the time.
- keanzu 7y agoBased on the evidence you have put forth your conclusion is logical and reasonable. You have convinced me that my statement was in error.
- croon 7y ago> The backup driver in the car was apparently looking at their phone or some other device and not watching the road at the time. "According to Uber, the developmental self-driving system relies on an attentive operator to intervene if the system fails to perform appropriately during testing. In addition, the operator is responsible for monitoring diagnostic messages that appear on an interface in the center stack of the vehicle dash and tagging events of interest for subsequent review" She was looking at a device, yes, but not her phone. Uber put one person on a two person job, with predictable results.
- keanzu 7y agoAfter the crash, police obtained search warrants for Vasquez's cellphones as well as records from the video streaming services Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu. The investigation concluded that because the data showed she was streaming The Voice over Hulu at the time of the collision, and the driver-facing camera in the Volvo showed "her face appears to react and show a smirk or laugh at various points during the time she is looking down", Vasquez may have been distracted from her primary job of monitoring road and vehicle conditions. Tempe police concluded the crash was "entirely avoidable" and faulted Vasquez for her "disregard for assigned job function to intervene in a hazardous situation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg#Distraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg#Distr...
- croon 7y agoFair enough, you're right, she was likely looking at her phone. The rest of my point still stands though.