5 ms·

It's too bad we can't rip the band-aid off and just go straight to full autonomy for every car using Waymo (or similar). The problem you identified becomes a no

by scep12 7y ago

It's too bad we can't rip the band-aid off and just go straight to full autonomy for every car using Waymo (or similar). The problem you identified becomes a non-issue if 1) it's the norm and 2) the passengers inside aren't paying enough attention to the road to care about the quirks. It's probable in my estimation that roads filled with only automated drivers become safer, more efficient, and more predictable, which acts as a flywheel for the prediction in the cars to get better. Would be really interesting if Waymo could prove this out somehow.

barrkel 7y ago
People, bicycles, motorcycles, pets: all unpredictable on the road. What you suggest only works - barely - on motorways.
- scep12 7y ago
  Waymo is at the point of being able to deal with those pretty well, right? Either way, I'm suggesting that the impatience OP experienced as a result of being a human driver proximal to a Waymo car would be obviated if all cars were driven by Waymo. If you're not driving the car that's behind the tentative Waymo car, do you really care? You're probably focused on the work you're doing in the car or the TV you're watching.
  - Piskvorrr 7y ago
    Sure, they say so, and have been for years! That obviously means they haven't been exaggerating then and aren't now; in that case, I have a very nice bridge here that might be of interest to you!
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  That boy chasing that ball out onto a crowded street has much better chances with an automated car vs one driven by a human. Heck, any of those situations human drivers perform very poorly in already, the bar is low.
  - rriepe 7y ago
    There are two bars though, because there's a double standard. If the robot car hits the boy, it's national news. The lower bar of surpassing human safety performance is, in almost all regards, not even relevant to the discussion. Maybe it should be but it's definitely not.
  - AareyBaba 7y ago
    I'm not sure about that. Looking at this system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCWL0XF_f8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCWL0XF_f8Y it is disconcerting how people pop in and out of view. A human could see a group of kids looking in the direction of the street at someone occluded from view and realize the possiblity of a child dashing out onto the street well in advance. The self-driving car would have to detect, classify and react after the child comes into view. It is this kind of common sense AI that we cannot engineer our way out. A couple days ago there was a viral post about how self-driving cars react to a 35 mph sign vandalized to look like 85 mph. A human would know that the sign is wrong - the self driving car would need this 'use case' programmed in - maybe have location based speed limits programmed in.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      I think you have way too much faith in human-based image tracking, and their ability to interpolate situations while listening to the radio. As for https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8021567/Tesla-cars-tricked-accelerating-85-MPH-35-MPH-zone-using-just-strip-tape.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8021567/Tesl... Reading the article: > ‘It is worth noting that this is seemingly only possible on the first implementation of TACC when the driver double taps the lever, engaging TACC.’ It isn't a strict self driving situation, but makes for great click bait. I can't imagine that this isn't an easy fix (Tesla's are also easy to update collectively via software update, try doing that to human beings).
  - DrScump 7y ago
    I have first-hand experience with such a case, and I disagree. I avoided hitting a kid that I think any AI would have killed. I'm driving southbound on Fair Oaks in Sunnyvale, approaching Arques. On the corner is a mini strip mall with a small parking lot. Out of the corner of my eye, I see a young child, maybe 4 years old, running around that parking lot being chased by his mother or caretaker. Now, being well off the road and out of its universe of conditions that would be considered by an AI, he would be ignored. But I just knew, somehow, that this was trouble. The kid, thinking this is a fun, impromptu chase game, then sprints directly into traffic right in front of me. I stop with a foot to spare. Edge conditions: it's what's for dinner. (tm)

by scep12 7y ago

barrkel 7y ago

People, bicycles, motorcycles, pets: all unpredictable on the road. What you suggest only works - barely - on motorways.

scep12 7y ago
Waymo is at the point of being able to deal with those pretty well, right? Either way, I'm suggesting that the impatience OP experienced as a result of being a human driver proximal to a Waymo car would be obviated if all cars were driven by Waymo. If you're not driving the car that's behind the tentative Waymo car, do you really care? You're probably focused on the work you're doing in the car or the TV you're watching.
- Piskvorrr 7y ago
  Sure, they say so, and have been for years! That obviously means they haven't been exaggerating then and aren't now; in that case, I have a very nice bridge here that might be of interest to you!
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
That boy chasing that ball out onto a crowded street has much better chances with an automated car vs one driven by a human. Heck, any of those situations human drivers perform very poorly in already, the bar is low.
- rriepe 7y ago
  There are two bars though, because there's a double standard. If the robot car hits the boy, it's national news. The lower bar of surpassing human safety performance is, in almost all regards, not even relevant to the discussion. Maybe it should be but it's definitely not.
- AareyBaba 7y ago
  I'm not sure about that. Looking at this system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCWL0XF_f8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCWL0XF_f8Y it is disconcerting how people pop in and out of view. A human could see a group of kids looking in the direction of the street at someone occluded from view and realize the possiblity of a child dashing out onto the street well in advance. The self-driving car would have to detect, classify and react after the child comes into view. It is this kind of common sense AI that we cannot engineer our way out. A couple days ago there was a viral post about how self-driving cars react to a 35 mph sign vandalized to look like 85 mph. A human would know that the sign is wrong - the self driving car would need this 'use case' programmed in - maybe have location based speed limits programmed in.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    I think you have way too much faith in human-based image tracking, and their ability to interpolate situations while listening to the radio. As for https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8021567/Tesla-cars-tricked-accelerating-85-MPH-35-MPH-zone-using-just-strip-tape.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8021567/Tesl... Reading the article: > ‘It is worth noting that this is seemingly only possible on the first implementation of TACC when the driver double taps the lever, engaging TACC.’ It isn't a strict self driving situation, but makes for great click bait. I can't imagine that this isn't an easy fix (Tesla's are also easy to update collectively via software update, try doing that to human beings).
- DrScump 7y ago
  I have first-hand experience with such a case, and I disagree. I avoided hitting a kid that I think any AI would have killed. I'm driving southbound on Fair Oaks in Sunnyvale, approaching Arques. On the corner is a mini strip mall with a small parking lot. Out of the corner of my eye, I see a young child, maybe 4 years old, running around that parking lot being chased by his mother or caretaker. Now, being well off the road and out of its universe of conditions that would be considered by an AI, he would be ignored. But I just knew, somehow, that this was trouble. The kid, thinking this is a fun, impromptu chase game, then sprints directly into traffic right in front of me. I stop with a foot to spare. Edge conditions: it's what's for dinner. (tm)