6 ms·

I think we're still far out. There still hasn't been a solution proposed (that I've seen), of how to avoid multiple disaster scenarios (Ex. hit child chasing ba

by rabuse 7y ago

I think we're still far out. There still hasn't been a solution proposed (that I've seen), of how to avoid multiple disaster scenarios (Ex. hit child chasing ball, or veer off of cliff).

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
As soon as this question shows up on a human driving test with an agreed-upon correct answer, it'll be fair game as a prerequisite for an L5 autonomous vehicle. For now, though, I can't imagine how it's a significant problem for self-driving cars to be able to solve.
- notatoad 7y ago
  It was on my driving test in Alberta 15 years ago. The correct answer is to remember that the people in the car are protected by a big cage of metal, and pedestrians aren't. I think the actual question was whether or not you should drive into a wall instead of hitting a pedestrian, not drive off a cliff. But hitting a pedestrian was definitely not the right answer.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    I mean, if that's the answer you want to program into a robot car, it doesn't sound hard to do. Luckily I've never been faced with this choice, and if I did have a fraction of a second to decide I have no idea what would happen. Doesn't stop me from driving though.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
datguacdoh 7y ago
The answer is probably that this isn't real. A self driving car with better vision, perfect attention, and instant reactions won't get itself into that kind of situation. And in any other case where an accident is unavoidable, the answer is to just hit the brakes because it won't matter anyway.
- allendoerfer 7y ago
  Another benefit will be that the self-driving car behind you will also instantly hit the brakes and won‘t cause you neck trauma, making this option a little bit more appealing than it is right now.
  - rimliu 7y ago
    There is no need for self-driving cars to have emergency braking assist.
- rimliu 7y ago
  Also, it has about zero understanding of what's going on. And it also has the same laws of physics acting on it. Zero reaction time does not translate to zero braking distance. People understand the world around and can make predictions which gives them time to react.
pqdfdsaff 7y ago
That's not a real problem. The correct answer is to stop the car, in almost any realistic scenario. It's also not a big deal, because human drivers are really bad at surprise children jumping into the middle of roads near the edge of cliffs too.
- arein2 7y ago
  Or the user could choose personality of the AI selfish vs altruistic to match his
  - pqdfdsaff 7y ago
    maybe this is a joke, but really, no. Car AIs don't encounter trolley problems, because the trolley in the trolley problem is ALREADY out of control and unable to stop (besides the turning lever). If the Car AI is in a situation where it might lose control of the car, it should decide that it isn't safe to drive. Asking a car to be altruistic means the car is making value judgements about what's better to hit, which means there's a mode where the car decides to hit something. The car should not be allowed to decide to hit something, or even swerve wildly out of the way. It should drive at a slow enough speed that it can safely stop for reasonably encountered circumstances. And if someone teleports in front of your car, it should just try (and fail) to stop in time.
    - arein2 7y ago
      It depends. If someone runs a red light and swerving (assuming it knows it's safe) will avoid an accident I don't see why it shouldn't do it. But I agree this is an edge case and is not an important feature. There are more important things to focus on. The idea is to add an element of randomness to the decision making. I don't mean to pick random decisions, but when there are decisions that weight approximately the same it should pick the decision based on personality/mood. This would enable the algorithm to adapt and be flexible, instead of a deterministic algorithm that could cause chain unoptimal behavior.
      - 7y ago

by rabuse 7y ago

I think we're still far out. There still hasn't been a solution proposed (that I've seen), of how to avoid multiple disaster scenarios (Ex. hit child chasing ball, or veer off of cliff).

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

As soon as this question shows up on a human driving test with an agreed-upon correct answer, it'll be fair game as a prerequisite for an L5 autonomous vehicle. For now, though, I can't imagine how it's a significant problem for self-driving cars to be able to solve.

notatoad 7y ago
It was on my driving test in Alberta 15 years ago. The correct answer is to remember that the people in the car are protected by a big cage of metal, and pedestrians aren't. I think the actual question was whether or not you should drive into a wall instead of hitting a pedestrian, not drive off a cliff. But hitting a pedestrian was definitely not the right answer.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  I mean, if that's the answer you want to program into a robot car, it doesn't sound hard to do. Luckily I've never been faced with this choice, and if I did have a fraction of a second to decide I have no idea what would happen. Doesn't stop me from driving though.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

datguacdoh 7y ago

The answer is probably that this isn't real. A self driving car with better vision, perfect attention, and instant reactions won't get itself into that kind of situation. And in any other case where an accident is unavoidable, the answer is to just hit the brakes because it won't matter anyway.

allendoerfer 7y ago
Another benefit will be that the self-driving car behind you will also instantly hit the brakes and won‘t cause you neck trauma, making this option a little bit more appealing than it is right now.
- rimliu 7y ago
  There is no need for self-driving cars to have emergency braking assist.
rimliu 7y ago
Also, it has about zero understanding of what's going on. And it also has the same laws of physics acting on it. Zero reaction time does not translate to zero braking distance. People understand the world around and can make predictions which gives them time to react.

pqdfdsaff 7y ago

That's not a real problem. The correct answer is to stop the car, in almost any realistic scenario. It's also not a big deal, because human drivers are really bad at surprise children jumping into the middle of roads near the edge of cliffs too.

arein2 7y ago
Or the user could choose personality of the AI selfish vs altruistic to match his
- pqdfdsaff 7y ago
  maybe this is a joke, but really, no. Car AIs don't encounter trolley problems, because the trolley in the trolley problem is ALREADY out of control and unable to stop (besides the turning lever). If the Car AI is in a situation where it might lose control of the car, it should decide that it isn't safe to drive. Asking a car to be altruistic means the car is making value judgements about what's better to hit, which means there's a mode where the car decides to hit something. The car should not be allowed to decide to hit something, or even swerve wildly out of the way. It should drive at a slow enough speed that it can safely stop for reasonably encountered circumstances. And if someone teleports in front of your car, it should just try (and fail) to stop in time.
  - arein2 7y ago
    It depends. If someone runs a red light and swerving (assuming it knows it's safe) will avoid an accident I don't see why it shouldn't do it. But I agree this is an edge case and is not an important feature. There are more important things to focus on. The idea is to add an element of randomness to the decision making. I don't mean to pick random decisions, but when there are decisions that weight approximately the same it should pick the decision based on personality/mood. This would enable the algorithm to adapt and be flexible, instead of a deterministic algorithm that could cause chain unoptimal behavior.
    - 7y ago