4 ms·

Nice story...if only it would match the evidence. The algorithm has detected the person 6 seconds before the crash, but as it didn't match any of the object cla

Nice story...if only it would match the evidence. The algorithm has detected the person 6 seconds before the crash, but as it didn't match any of the object classes conclusively, it took no action. You read that right: "there's something at 12 o'clock. Bike? Person? Unknown? Who cares, proceed through it!" If that's not a hard fail, IDK what would.

dkonofalski 7y ago
That's not what happened. The AI was not programmed to drive through anything. It was incorrectly programmed to dump previous data when the categorization changed. It correctly identified at each point that it was meant to slow down and/or stop but, by the time it determined what the obstacle was, the previous data was thrown out and it didn't have enough time to stop properly. In your example, it was more like "There's something that 12 o'clock. Bike? Person? Unknown? Stop!!" just before actually hitting the person.
- Piskvorrr 7y ago
  The car did "see" an obstacle for over 6 seconds and did not brake for it, now someone is dead. You are haggling over semantics to make it look like this did not happen and/or this is not a bug. Atrocious. (Or, more charitably, "oops, somebody forgot that object persistence is a thing" does not excuse the result)
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    What? That's not at all what I'm doing and you're being extremely disingenuous to suggest that. I'm simply correcting misinformation. The car wasn't programmed to drive through anything. It was programmed to throw away information. Either way, it's an atrocious mistake and I've even said, elsewhere in these comments, that the people responsible for that code should be held liable for criminal negligence. There's no need to lie about my point or my position to defend yourself. That's just silly.
    - Piskvorrr 7y ago
      I have misunderstood you then, and I apologize.
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        Then I forgive you and I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this. Everyone should be appalled at Uber's role in this and their response along with the lack of repercussions for them.

dkonofalski 7y ago

That's not what happened. The AI was not programmed to drive through anything. It was incorrectly programmed to dump previous data when the categorization changed. It correctly identified at each point that it was meant to slow down and/or stop but, by the time it determined what the obstacle was, the previous data was thrown out and it didn't have enough time to stop properly. In your example, it was more like "There's something that 12 o'clock. Bike? Person? Unknown? Stop!!" just before actually hitting the person.

Piskvorrr 7y ago
The car did "see" an obstacle for over 6 seconds and did not brake for it, now someone is dead. You are haggling over semantics to make it look like this did not happen and/or this is not a bug. Atrocious. (Or, more charitably, "oops, somebody forgot that object persistence is a thing" does not excuse the result)
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  What? That's not at all what I'm doing and you're being extremely disingenuous to suggest that. I'm simply correcting misinformation. The car wasn't programmed to drive through anything. It was programmed to throw away information. Either way, it's an atrocious mistake and I've even said, elsewhere in these comments, that the people responsible for that code should be held liable for criminal negligence. There's no need to lie about my point or my position to defend yourself. That's just silly.
  - Piskvorrr 7y ago
    I have misunderstood you then, and I apologize.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      Then I forgive you and I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this. Everyone should be appalled at Uber's role in this and their response along with the lack of repercussions for them.