5 ms·

> Guy was using his phone not paying attention to the road when testing experimental equipment on a public road. He was there specifically to mitigate potential

by ardy42 6y ago

> Guy was using his phone not paying attention to the road when testing experimental equipment on a public road. He was there specifically to mitigate potential malfunctions of said experimental equipment, but he was reading reddit or whatever instead of keeping lookout. > I can't see how this is not clear cut negligence. 1) The driver is a woman. 2) While I think the driver does bear some fault here, they don't bear all the fault. Uber designed an unsafe system that relied on an unnatural amount of vigilance from a single person while simultaneously discouraging that vigilance [1]. They didn't design the car to shut down when one of it's critical safety components (the driver) was not operating correctly, and they didn't even give that driver amphetamines or something to increase their vigilance to artificial levels. [1] Basically: pay close attention to a boring process while doing absolutely nothing for hours on end. I'm pretty sure that's a classic "humans suck at this" task.

Aunche 6y ago
Modern cars are essentially self driving on the highway, and it doesn't require an an unnatural level vigilance to operate them. To be fair, the driver's assistance features are usually come with an attention monitor, so Uber is negligent in that aspect. Also, no one said the driver has to do nothing. They can safely listen to audiobooks or talk on the phone.
- cocire 6y ago
  talking on the phone can be nearly as distracting as watching TV in some cases. it's also illegal in a lot of places...
  - gjs278 6y ago
    pretty much nowhere is it illegal to talk on the phone while driving if it's in hands free mode
HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago
I agree with you except for > and they didn't even give that driver amphetamines Yo, what? IIRC, most *amphetamines are either illegal in the US or like FDA Class 1 substances or something like that, and you just want to throw them at people operating > 1 ton machinery? That seems like it could have an even higher risk for danger.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Yo, what? IIRC, most amphetamines are either illegal in the US or like FDA Class 1 substances or something like that, and you just want to throw them at people operating > 1 ton machinery? That seems like it could have an even higher* risk for danger. That's true, and my comment was mostly sarcastic (but a little serious). Amphetamines are given to military pilots to increase alertness [1]. They're also used to treat attention deficit disorder (stimulants also increase focus in healthy people, see coffee). Some years ago I read that they're also popular in some parts of Asia not for recreation, but to help workers focus on boring, repetitive tasks (and they apparently can even make that kind of work seem "fun"), but I can't find the exact article again. The kind of job these "car monitors" are expected to do is so unnatural that it's ludicrous that someone could be expected to succeed at it perfectly, unassisted. [1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8885/do-military-pilots-use-amphetamines-or-other-stimulants https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8885/do-militar...
- gjs278 6y ago
  lol. no, that's not how amphetamines work. and they're not class 1 either.
clusterfish 6y ago
That "unnatural amount of vigilance" is just sitting in a comfy seat and looking at the road ahead of you go by. There is nothing unnatural about that. Lots of people do similar or more boring tasks just fine. This isn't a truck driver falling asleep from exhaustion caused by aggressive scheduling. You don't "accidentally" take out your phone when your job is looking ahead. That's deliberate negligence. If you want to require eye sensors to detect distraction, by all means, pass a law about it. Maybe include regular non-AI cars too. #1 cause of accidents over here.
- vkou 6y ago
  > That "unnatural amount of vigilance" is just sitting in a comfy seat and looking at the road ahead of you go by. Doing that for five minutes is easy. Can you do that for eight hours? Day after day? Without a single lapse in attention? This is a much harder job then the truck driver has - because he constantly has to make microadjustments, to correct for road conditions. People's brains don't work the way you think they do.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    Many people write this notion in this thread. Do you have any data for this BTW? How are you claiming this confidently? Have you driven a self-driving car? Many people (myself included) find it quite easy to monitor the road in it for long periods of time. If the driver was not one of them, she shouldn't have taken the job and risked innocent lives.
    - vkou 6y ago
      How are you so confident that you are different from all the Tesla owners whose self-crashing autopilots drove their vehicles into stationary objects, fire trucks, semis, etc? What makes you confident that you are actually good at it, and are not the victim of Dunning-Kruger? Do you regularly find yourself in the process of stopping your self-serving car from crashing into things? Or has your car simply not crashed yet?
creddit 6y ago
How is the required amount of vigilance any different than that of normal driving?
- freeone3000 6y ago
  In normal driving, the driver is continually taking actions. Making small adjustments, considering hypotheticals, checking mirrors and speed. If the user is continually engaging with the system, there's less of a risk of the user's attention lapsing. Once the user's input is no longer required, humans are very bad at paying attention to something that doesn't change, and very bad at reacting to the change when it does happen.
  - creddit 6y ago
    I fail to see what stops one of these car monitors from “considering hypotheticals, checking mirrors and speed.” I get that it’s boring but fail to see how that’s an excuse for not paying attention (or watching streaming video) to a dynamic system you’re expected to actively engage with. Many train systems are largely autonomous and far more static and yet we still expect train operators to not kill someone on the tracks. How do you feel about lifeguards as a job? Failure of pools and beaches to design a good system?
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Please see the top comment for how lifeguard systems avoid these issues - 30-minute short shifts, overlapping responsibilities, and monitored attention. Train conductors do not require second-level reaction time. A train cannot stop in five seconds, no matter how quick the conductor is. People who are stopped on train tracks get killed, and the train operator is very rarely to blame.
Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
In what world is asking someone to at least not pick up their phone and start watching videos instead of doing one's job and at least looking at the road outside is "unnatural amount of vigilance"? It's the basic job description. If she couldn't do it, she shouldn't have taken the job.

by ardy42 6y ago

Aunche 6y ago

Modern cars are essentially self driving on the highway, and it doesn't require an an unnatural level vigilance to operate them. To be fair, the driver's assistance features are usually come with an attention monitor, so Uber is negligent in that aspect. Also, no one said the driver has to do nothing. They can safely listen to audiobooks or talk on the phone.

cocire 6y ago
talking on the phone can be nearly as distracting as watching TV in some cases. it's also illegal in a lot of places...
- gjs278 6y ago
  pretty much nowhere is it illegal to talk on the phone while driving if it's in hands free mode

HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago

I agree with you except for > and they didn't even give that driver amphetamines Yo, what? IIRC, most *amphetamines are either illegal in the US or like FDA Class 1 substances or something like that, and you just want to throw them at people operating > 1 ton machinery? That seems like it could have an even higher risk for danger.

ardy42 6y ago
> Yo, what? IIRC, most amphetamines are either illegal in the US or like FDA Class 1 substances or something like that, and you just want to throw them at people operating > 1 ton machinery? That seems like it could have an even higher* risk for danger. That's true, and my comment was mostly sarcastic (but a little serious). Amphetamines are given to military pilots to increase alertness [1]. They're also used to treat attention deficit disorder (stimulants also increase focus in healthy people, see coffee). Some years ago I read that they're also popular in some parts of Asia not for recreation, but to help workers focus on boring, repetitive tasks (and they apparently can even make that kind of work seem "fun"), but I can't find the exact article again. The kind of job these "car monitors" are expected to do is so unnatural that it's ludicrous that someone could be expected to succeed at it perfectly, unassisted. [1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8885/do-military-pilots-use-amphetamines-or-other-stimulants https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8885/do-militar...
gjs278 6y ago
lol. no, that's not how amphetamines work. and they're not class 1 either.

clusterfish 6y ago

That "unnatural amount of vigilance" is just sitting in a comfy seat and looking at the road ahead of you go by. There is nothing unnatural about that. Lots of people do similar or more boring tasks just fine. This isn't a truck driver falling asleep from exhaustion caused by aggressive scheduling. You don't "accidentally" take out your phone when your job is looking ahead. That's deliberate negligence. If you want to require eye sensors to detect distraction, by all means, pass a law about it. Maybe include regular non-AI cars too. #1 cause of accidents over here.

vkou 6y ago
> That "unnatural amount of vigilance" is just sitting in a comfy seat and looking at the road ahead of you go by. Doing that for five minutes is easy. Can you do that for eight hours? Day after day? Without a single lapse in attention? This is a much harder job then the truck driver has - because he constantly has to make microadjustments, to correct for road conditions. People's brains don't work the way you think they do.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  Many people write this notion in this thread. Do you have any data for this BTW? How are you claiming this confidently? Have you driven a self-driving car? Many people (myself included) find it quite easy to monitor the road in it for long periods of time. If the driver was not one of them, she shouldn't have taken the job and risked innocent lives.
  - vkou 6y ago
    How are you so confident that you are different from all the Tesla owners whose self-crashing autopilots drove their vehicles into stationary objects, fire trucks, semis, etc? What makes you confident that you are actually good at it, and are not the victim of Dunning-Kruger? Do you regularly find yourself in the process of stopping your self-serving car from crashing into things? Or has your car simply not crashed yet?

creddit 6y ago

How is the required amount of vigilance any different than that of normal driving?

freeone3000 6y ago
In normal driving, the driver is continually taking actions. Making small adjustments, considering hypotheticals, checking mirrors and speed. If the user is continually engaging with the system, there's less of a risk of the user's attention lapsing. Once the user's input is no longer required, humans are very bad at paying attention to something that doesn't change, and very bad at reacting to the change when it does happen.
- creddit 6y ago
  I fail to see what stops one of these car monitors from “considering hypotheticals, checking mirrors and speed.” I get that it’s boring but fail to see how that’s an excuse for not paying attention (or watching streaming video) to a dynamic system you’re expected to actively engage with. Many train systems are largely autonomous and far more static and yet we still expect train operators to not kill someone on the tracks. How do you feel about lifeguards as a job? Failure of pools and beaches to design a good system?
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Please see the top comment for how lifeguard systems avoid these issues - 30-minute short shifts, overlapping responsibilities, and monitored attention. Train conductors do not require second-level reaction time. A train cannot stop in five seconds, no matter how quick the conductor is. People who are stopped on train tracks get killed, and the train operator is very rarely to blame.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

In what world is asking someone to at least not pick up their phone and start watching videos instead of doing one's job and at least looking at the road outside is "unnatural amount of vigilance"? It's the basic job description. If she couldn't do it, she shouldn't have taken the job.